Happened to hear a few moments of today's "Michael Medved" show. The topic was Bush's inauguration, and a caller, "Chuck", from Redmond, Washington, asserted confidently that Bush was basing his foreign policy on the bible, in a secret attempt to fulfill "those prophecies" in the book of Revelation to "rebuild the temple of David."

Medved, being Jewish and knowing something of these matters, pointed out there was no temple of David. Medved asked for concrete examples. Chuck could provide none, beyond simply stating that Bush was a Christian. Chuck finally came up with the idea that Bush had "always backed Israel."

Medved pointed out that the US had condemned Israel about a dozen times under the Bush administration, and stated that he felt the only area of strong support had been against the same threat we faced, Islamic terrorism. Medved asked if Chuck thought that was a fiction, too.

Chuck said it wasn't fictional, and he felt that Bush had not taken a strong enough stance in that area. Finally, Chuck came out and stated that it wasn't that Bush had done something unreasonable in foreign policy, but that, he felt, Bush's motivations were secretly based in the bible.

Another caller, a Christian, called in to state that he didn't think it would be appropriate for a serious, devout Christian to be President of the United States of America.

After Michael pointed out that nearly every president had used religious language another caller stated that what made it wrong was that Bush actually believed it. He pointed out that guys like Clinton and FDR had committedly adultery, which apparently proved these men didn't "have a relationship" with God, and thus (apparently) qualified them to be president.

Rather than pointing to the absurdity in the man's position -- he was basicly impling that adultery or other obvious hypocrisy was a precondition for being qualified for US President -- Medved pointed out King David had sexual sins too, but had a relationship with God, and suggested (quoting Bush) we should perhaps not be in the business of deciding who gets into heaven.

(Of course, for comic effect, there were also a few callers doing the same, but alleging the exact opposite: Bush was not a Christian at all, but was motivated entirely by greed. Gosh, just can't decide which way he's wrong. He is simultaneously too tall and too short.)

The idea we are seeing here goes like this: (a) The constitution establishes separation of Church and State, (b) a devout Christian might support some policy because of the bible told him/her so, and (c) thus, no serious Christian who might obey the bible should ever be allowed in government.

In effect, we are saying we should only be ruled by atheists and hypocrites. And that, somehow, that is the "American way" and has always been so. But the evidence is quite to the contrary.

Historical Evidence

As Medved pointed out, almost every US president has spoken freely about God. Many have undoubtedly have done so sincerely. For just one example, here is an excerpt from Lincoln's proclamation of Thanksgiving Day, written from his official position "As President":

I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience...

This official proclamation asserts that we, as a nation, have sinned, that God has punished us but still blesses us, and that we should therefore have a national day of thanks for those blessings he continues to give. It is impossible to explain this kind of proclaimation without noticing that it is entirely based in Lincoln's personal beliefs about God. It serves no secular purpose, and clearly stems from personal religious motivations and convictions.

So is that un-American? Apparently, Lincoln, along with the vast majority of Americans living at the time, didn't realize such statements were completely against our way of life and government. Nor, apparently, have the many generations who have observed Thanksgiving since then noticed how deeply it runs against our tradition of government.

The quote from Lincoln above is just one example among so many. Here's a quote from University of Huston professor Donald Lutz, in The Origins of American Constitutionalism:

If we ask which book was most frequently cited in that literature [of the founding era], the answer is, the Bible. Table 1 shows that the biblical tradition accounted for roughly one-third of the citations in the sample. However, the sample includes about one-third of all significant secular publications, but only about one-tenth of the reprinted sermons. Even with this undercount, Saint Paul is cited about as frequently as Montesquieu and Blackstone, the two most-cited secular authors, and Deuteronomy is cited almost twice as often as all of Locke's writings put together. A strictly proportional sample with respect to secular and religious sources would have resulted in an abundance of religious references....

Approximately 80 percent of the political pamphlets published during the 1770s were reprinted sermons. When reading comprehensively in the political literature of the war years, one cannot but be struck by the extent to which biblical sources used by ministers and traditional Whigs undergirded the justification for the break with Britain, the rationale for continuing the war, and the basic principles of Americans' writing their own constitutions. (pp. 140, 142)

Apparently, the Founding Fathers and their contemporaries were unaware that basing foreign policy or other political decisions on their religious convictions was against the "American" system of government. Indeed, it seems they messed up royally (pardon the pun) by basing the US Constitution on the writings of Moses and Saint Paul more than any enlightenment philosopher!

Law and Morality

One argument frequently offered by those who want the pious out of politics is that one cannot legislate morality. This idea is wrong, unhistorical, and perhaps unintentionally hypocritical. All law is based in personal morality. There are no exceptions.

Why do we place the speed limit at a certain number? To prevent people from being killed, because, we argue, that's the moral thing to do. When a politician says she wants to create a "single payer" healthcare system, she uses the argument that it's immoral to allow poor people to go untreated. When Republicans want to lower taxes, they say it's immoral for the government to take (and waste) so much money. When Democrats protest, they proclaim it's immoral to favor the rich. Even the politician who enacts legislation in exchange for money is acting upon his personal morality! (That is, he feels getting cash to make laws is a fine thing for him to do!) And we constantly debate law using moral terms and arguments.

So what does this phrase mean then?

In my experience, it is selectively invoked by the left. A Christian cannot legally oppose abortion, we are told, because that would be based in private moral and/or religious beliefs. But there is no similar outcry when, for example, John Kerry attempts to use the teachings of Jesus, in church, from the pulpit, during the Sunday morning service, to argue against the current administration and for his own election!

Tens of millions of Americans were introduced to [John Kerry's] spirituality during the final debate, in which Kerry talked at some length about the Catholicism he says guides his ideology and life.

"My faith affects everything that I do, in truth," Kerry said during the debate last week in Tempe, Ariz. The candidate is planning to further elaborate on faith, family and values in a speech this week, aides said.

Likewise, we are told President's Bush's public mentions of Jesus Christ constitute a violation of the separation of church and state. Yet President Clinton did so much more often in his first term (on 41 occasions, in contrast to Bush's 14) without provoking similar criticism.

Finally, I often hear Democrats argue that because Jesus wants us to feed the poor, we should have a welfare state. Yet the exact same people would be horrified if we suggested Jesus's views on adultery should similarly be enshrined as law.

Clearly, this principle is being applied selectively.

Some, like the caller mentioned above, come out and admit it. They argue that guys like Bill Clinton and John Kerry are hypocrites, not "true believers", and thus that there is nothing threatening about their use of God-talk because they don't really mean it and won't act upon it. And that sort of deception is, I am to infer, a good thing to want in a leader.

George Washington

In contrast to this view, George Washington gave the following advice in his farewell address (my emphases added):

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, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

Washington's position is diametrically opposed to the we are seeing from so many on the left today: Religious convictions were an indispensible motivation for politics and law, not a prohibited one. Instead of saying there should be no connections between one's personal beliefs and public law, he said he "could not trace" all the ways in which the two were connected. Instead of saying such connections resulted in bad government, he argues are necessary for good government and justice. Instead of saying the pious should be prevented from holding office and acting on religious convictions, Washington urges even the "mere" (i.e. non-pious) politician to "respect" and even "cherish" the links between religious convictions and public law. Instead of the pious bending to become secular, he would have the secular bend to respect the pious.

Was George Washington, perhaps, not a "Founding Father"? Was he some oddball who did not typify his time? Or have we perhaps gotten something very, very wrong in the mean time?

John Adams

Perhaps John Adams also didn't understand the intent of the Constitution or the "Founding Fathers" among which he was counted, for he also wrote:

The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite.... And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United...

In other words, the Founding Fathers were all moved by "mere Christianity", as C.S. Lewis has since called it, and drew on those principles as the basis for the nation in which we now live and liberty we now enjoy.

James Madison

Even James Madison, who advocated a strict separation of church and state of a type I agree with, apparently did so from Christian motives. For example, Madison argues against having the government hire people to teach the Christian religion. Again, I agree. But also notice that his arguments proceed directly from his own religious faith:

It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him.... Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe....

Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God....

....the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions; and how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of revelation from coming into the Region of it...

In other words, Madison supported freedom of choice in religion because of his Christian faith, and not because he was a secularist. He professed his faith, professed it to be of divine origin -- in legislation, no less! -- and publicly opposed the bill because he felt it would intefere with the spread of Christianity!

I'll address this more below, but note for the moment that James Madison clearly supported legislation because of his own Christian convictions and morals. He brought his religious beliefs to the table, and argued them publicly. It was in them that others found their own religious liberty.

Madison also called religion "the basis and Foundation of Government" and wrote we had "staked the future of all our political institutions" upon our ability "to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." Clearly, someone forgot to tell the "Father of the Constitution" not to base his political positions on his religious beliefs!

I could easily quote the same kinds of material from Patrick Henry, Bejamin Rush, Samuel Adams, John Witherspoon, and so on. Finding such quotes from the Constitution's framers and our Founding Fathers is an easy task. Instead, let's just look at one more...

Thomas Jefferson

Another idea put forth to exclude the religious from political life is the idea of a "wall of separation between Chuch and State," a phrase which eminated from the pen of Thomas Jefferson in his letter to the elders of the Danbury Baptist church.

The usual refuation is to demonstrate that Jefferson (a) was referring to the establishment of a particular sect not prohibiting general religous debate, (b) meant that the practice should be left to the states, (c) noted that Jefferson himself wrote legislation to support days of religious observation, and also note (d) that this was merely a private letter, not a legal document. These various points have been demonstrated adequately by others, providing more than ample evidence for anyone interested in the truth of the matter.

Instead, I'd just like to point out that Jefferson's own beliefs about government refute the key argument used by the religion-excluders. Their argument, again, is that by sponsoring legislation or voting from religious convictions, a specific religion or religious principle might be enshrined as law, thus "establishing" some specific religion.

Thomas Jefferson argued otherwise. In the very same letter from which we get the phrase "separation of Church and State", Jefferson writes, "the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions." In other words, if we all get together and vote on something, no specific principle -- much less a religious one -- is enshrined as law, only the agreed-upon action.

For example, one legislator might argue for a state welfare system based on her understanding of the gospels. Another might do the same because he is an atheistic follower of Marx. If their bill passes neither principle is enshrined as law, only the decision to provide a welfare system. The underlying motivation of the bill's sponsors, the other voting legistors, and their constitutents is, from Jefferson's point of view, utterly irrevelant.

Thus, Thomas Jefferson would have seen a vote on abortion, welfare, birth control, sexual education, as NOT enshrining any particular underlying religious or moral principle, just agreeing upon the end result. People who attempt to use his writings to assert the opposite are, in fact, involking a view diametrically opposed to Jefferson's own understanding of government.

As supporting evidence, note that Jefferson, himself not categorizable as an orthodox "Christian," in the strictest sense, freely drew upon his own religious convictions in writing and enacting legislation.

For example, here is the opening of his Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom. Like Madison, Jefferson argues against using the government to propagate some specific religious doctrine. Yet, also like Madison, the bill is based upon, and openly states, his own specific religious convictions:

Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion...

In other words, Jefferson believed forcing people to convert to some sect was against the will of God, as he understood it. This was a tenant of his own belief system, and yet he openly stated it in the preamble to this legislation.

In the shallow modern liberal understanding, this is a contradiction: How could Jefferson use religious arguments to promote a law separating church and state? Isn't he contradicting his own beliefs by using his own understanding of God as the basis for a law? He's clearly legislating from his own morality, and drawing upon his own religious principles in writing law.

Again, the solution is that Jefferson didn't believe that voting on this law enshrined his religious views, only the end result. Jefferson thought coercing people to believe was against the will of God, and said so plainly in the legislation. But when Congress approved the bill, they didn't endorse Jefferson's view of the will of God. They simply agreed to the proposed action: not to make taxpayers pay to propagate a religion they might not agree with.

It is the modern liberal, not the conservative, whose views lack nuance.

Finally, I note that Jefferson is but one founding father. Nobody tried to make him king (that was Washington), and his personal opinons would lead us, paradoxically, to conclude his personal opinions were not enshrined in the Constitution, but rather that we should instead heed the text of the law he and the others all agreed upon together, publicly:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

We cannot have it both ways. If the plain meaning of the First Amendment comes into conflict with some other idea, such as the modern liberal re-interpretation of "separation of Chuch and State", there can be only one dominant concept. I'm in favor of the First Amendment.

Sadly, I fear it may be lost to those who oppose it in favor of a concept which would have shocked and horrified the Founding Fathers -- even the allegedly least Christian among them -- the idea of excluding those influenced by religious principles from the public square. Such an understanding would have excluded even Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine from public service.

If we are to believe George Washington...

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.... The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it [free government] can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

... then those supporting this idea are, regardless of their good intentions, acting in effect as enemies of the freedom we have historically enjoyed in this country.

A Note to Christians

There are a good many "liberal" Christians who undoubtedly have the best intentions, but have adopted the view that the pious should not or cannot be involved in politics. If I cannot dissuade you using the writings of the Founding Fathers, perhaps I can persuade you using the gospel of Christ.

(Or, if Christ's directives means less to you than some cherished political concept, then please admit it and move along, or at least go read the first commandment. We all disobey it, but only some of us call that disobedience "good policy" and demand others behave likewise.)

Didn't Jesus say those who obeyed his words are "salt and light"? What does that mean? Much of society is controlled by government -- more each year. How are we to have an impact if we say anyone influenced by Jesus's words and directives must disqualify themselves from having any influence on that part of life? If Jesus says "Go and do X" and X somehow involves public policy, then we should NOT go and do X, simply because Jesus told us to? How perverse is that?

How would the slaves have been freed? How would women have achieved suffrage? How would we have been free from England? How would we have kept children out of factories? How would we have supported civil rights legislation? Do you think, somehow, these political movements had their origins in the writings and leadership of atheists? In the appeals of secular humanism? That the morals upon which they rested, and the zeal they harnessed weren't imparted in countless Sunday school lessons?

How is the gospel supposed to improve society if the very people affected by it go and "hide their light under a bushel" by refusing to participate in each area of their life which has been affected by the gospel? Such Christians are the only ones I know who are foolish enough to say that learning more about a topic disqualifies a person from doing something about it.

Perhaps you would say the pious should be limited to clerical positions. Ignoring the profound violation of liberty you suggest: to whom would they speak then? By educating their flock, they would be moving their listeners under the same bushel. In the end, ideally, you'd have a huge crowd of Christians, all utterly excluded from participation as citizens, governed by a small cabal of godless atheists who are free to do anything they want, unencumbered by Christian morals.

Oh wait: we had something like that once. It was called the USSR. Little did we know it was the ideal model for liberal American Christians! Ask all the Christians and clergy who ended up in Siberia how well that worked out. Oh wait, they're all dead, as were countless unbelievers they failed to protect.

Finally, can you not see anti-Christian bigotry when it hits you in the face? Must you even be part of it? It is our job to stand up for the disenfranchised. Wouldn't you be shocked if someone said a Muslim or atheist shouldn't participate in our country because of his religious convictions or lack thereof? Wouldn't you stand against such a situation? How are you then so stupid as to allow it to be done to you -- the one who guarantees the freedom of others in the first place? Such a position is irresponsible.

Conclusion

Am I calling for a theocracy? No. Nor am I trying to cast the U.S. as an exclusively "Christian" country -- I've read plenty of arguments on both sides of that coin. I believe in a pluralistic nation with "liberty" -- including, most crucially, political liberty -- for all. Nor do I want the state to promote one religion over another.

But there's a huge difference between promoting a particular religion, and preventing the people from living out their beliefs as their conscience sees fit. Thus I'm only asking to retain the freedom to participate in public life we've all -- religious and irreligious -- shared for about 200 years.

In the beginning, the founding fathers narrowly decided not to require an office-holder to take an oath stating he was a Christian. Now the shoe is nearly on the other foot. Today, we clearly understand the folly of requiring a man profess a particular faith before taking office. But don't we realize it is just as bad (or perhaps worse) to forbid public service for the same reason?

But the new theocrats mandate we shall have no other god before the State. Is that not, also, an establishment of religion?