Reading The Constitution In Context: A Critique of Rick Santorum

[Selene]

Zoot...Zoot...Zoot

I was surprised myself.

[George H. Smith]

George, I want to apologize. I had a very bad day yesterday. Substantially I stand by what I wrote, but I did a very poor job of explaining what I meant. I, also, took the discussion to places it should not have gone. That's not your fault. That's mine. Michael

Thanks, Michael.

The problem of bias in the writing of history has been discussed in detail by philosophers of history for a long time, and it is still a point of contention. So is the question of whether truly "objective" history is even possible, and the related question of whether any historical account can be "value-free."

These and similar questions have fascinated me since my college years; I even gave a talk on them in 1973, while I was still writing ATCAG. I subsequently wrote about them (around 8 years ago) in a couple chapters on the philosophy of history for The Disciplines of Liberty, a massive project I was never able to finish, and never will.

Of course these matters pertain to inherent, unavoidable, and unconscious bias, not to deliberate distortion. A person who deliberately fudges facts is functioning as a propagandist, not as a historian. Any serious investigation of these problems must begin with careful consideration of what it means to speak of "objective" history and "value judgments" in the writing of history, not to mention the meaning of "history" itself.

One reason I first read Foucault's The Order of Things many years ago is because the book addresses the issues I have raised here, though in a diffuse, unfocused manner (which is typical of postmodernists). Foucault's general approach, as well as that of Richard Rorty and other postmodernists, is defended by Keith Jenkins in Re-Thinking History (1991) -- a crappy little book that my stepdaughter had to read while she was attending Illinois Wesleyan in the early 2000's. Here is how Jenkins (p. 32) summarizes Foucault, Rorty, et al:

History is a discourse, a language game; within it "truth" and similar expressions are devices to open, regulate, and shut down interpretations. Truth acts as a censor -- it draws the line. We know that such truths are really "useful fictions" that are in discourse by virtue of power (somebody has to put and keep them there) and power uses the term "truth" to exercise control: regimes of truth. Truth prevents disorder, and it is this fear of disorder (of the disorderly) or, to put this positively, it is this fear of freedom (for the unfree) that connects it functionally to material interests.

After reading 70 pages of this mind-numbing epistemological rat poison, my stepdaugher asked me (in effect), If Jenkins is right, then what is the point of reading history at all?

Excellent question.

Ghs

[Dennis Hardin]

Here’s a fascinating example of the historical spin game. In 1797, the United States signed a treaty with the Muslim nation of Tripoli that contained the following provision:

As the Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the law, religion or tranquility of Musselmen; and as the states never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mohometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever produce an interruption of harmony existing between the two countries.

From Wallbuilders (David Barton):

The 1797 treaty with Tripoli was one of the many treaties in which each country officially recognized the religion of the other in an attempt to prevent further escalation of a "Holy War" between Christians and Muslims. . .

This article may be read in two manners. It may, as its critics do, be concluded after the clause "Christian religion"; or it may be read in its entirety and concluded when the punctuation so indicates [as shown above--DH]. But even if shortened and cut abruptly ("the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion"), this is not an untrue statement since it is referring to the federal government.

Recall that while the Founders themselves openly described America as a Christian nation, they did include a constitutional prohibition against a federal establishment; religion was a matter left solely to the individual States. Therefore, if the article is read as a declaration that the federal government of the United States was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, such a statement is not a repudiation of the fact that America was considered a Christian nation.

From a “Separationist” website:

So far as we can tell, the inclusion of these words in the treaty had no negative political ramifications for the treaty whatsoever. On the contrary, the treaty was approved by President John Adams and his Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, and then was ratified by the Senate without objection. According to an information sheet provided to us by Ed Buckner of the Atlanta Freethought Society:

The Journal of the Executive Proceedings of the United States Senate clearly specifies that the treaty was read aloud on the floor of the Senate and that copies of the treaty were printed "for the use of the Senate." Nor is it plausible to argue that perhaps Senators voted for the treaty without being aware of the famous words. The treaty was quite short, requiring only two or three pages to reprint in most treaty books today--and printed, in its entirely, on but one page (sometimes the front page) of U.S. newspapers of the day. The lack of any recorded argument about the wording, as well as the unanimous vote and the and the wide reprinting of the words in the press of 1797, suggests that the idea that the government was not a Christian one was widely and easily accepted at the time.

We could debate until we’re all blue in the face about which one is “truth” and which one is a “useful fiction.” Or we could simply take the wording of the treaty itself at face value. I don't think the words "in any sense" leave a lot of wiggle room.

Is there any historical topic that's immune to noxious, interminable debate? This one certainly should be.

[Peter]

Dennis Hardin quoted a US treaty:

As the Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;

end quote

Thank you so much, Dennis. I am saving your letter for posterity. I hear the opposite over and over by Sean Hannity and other religious conservatives.

George H. Smith wrote on page 109 of “Why Atheism:”

“Bacon’s secularism, while it did not challenge Christianity per se, exiled God to the nether regions of faith and theology . . . “

and George quoted Franklin Baumer about 17^th Century thought:

“Secularism, unlike free thought, posed no threat to particular theological tenets. What it did was to outflank theology by staking out autonomous spheres of thought. The tendency was, more and more, to limit theology to the comparatively restricted sphere of faith and morals.”

end quote

I don’t have ATCAG handy but I seem to remember George going into more detail there or in one of his other books. This topic definitely needs a re-visit. I am so tired of arguing with Theists without definitive, convincing ammunition. They love to run down who among the founding fathers went to which church.

Peter Taylor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

It should be mentioned that the treaty was signed with a government that was, in fact, an Islamic theocracy.

Since there were not a lot of USA government statements like the one you quoted from those times (and I'm only presuming there were more because I don't know of any, although I did know about the wording in the treaty with Tripoli), I think it is reasonable to assume that the authors were trying to assure the Islamic theocratic government in Tripoli that the USA was not one of its traditional Christian theocratic enemies, or like those who favored religious warfare against Islam.

If you look at the times, that seems reasonable to me. They had Islamic fanatics even back then. (And even if some were pirates...)

I would be more inclined to give the interpretation you favor if there were treaties like that with, say, France or other non-theocratic countries.

In my view, within that context, the statement simply meant that the USA was not a Christian theocracy and had never been. I don't see where the USA government would have had any reason to assert the interpretation you favor with a hostile Islamic state during peace negotiations.

(I even find it easy to imagine that the wording of that phrase was made to sooth the suspicions of some of the Tripoli folks who were involved in the negotiations. Was there a lot of blah blah blah and accusations and so forth from the Tripoli folks where the word "Christianity" came up while the negotiations were developing? I can see it. I can even see them putting this on the table in an effort to gain advantages.)

Michael

[George H. Smith]

We could debate until we’re all blue in the face about which one is “truth” and which one is a “useful fiction.” Or we could simply take the wording of the treaty itself at face value. I don't think the words "in any sense" leave a lot of wiggle room. Is there any historical topic that's immune to noxious, interminable debate? This one certainly should be.

If you watch David Barton's interview with Jon Stewart, you will see that Barton misquotes the passage from the Treaty of Tripoli in an effort to show that it supposedly doesn't mean what it says.

Here is an interesting story about the Constitutional Convention (1787) that the likes of Barton either don't know about or would rather ignore. When the delegates appeared to be deadlocked over the issue of representation -- a problem that eventually resulted in the "Great Compromise" -- Benjamin Franklin suggested that a minister be called in to pray for a resolution. The proposal was voted down, and no minister was summoned. Alexander Hamilton quipped that the Convention had no need for foreign aid.

I included this story in my Knowledge Products scripts on the Constitution. I wrote four of the eight scripts (two on the Convention and two on the text of the Constitution -- around 180 manuscript pages altogether), and I edited the other four (by Jeff Hummel and Wendy McElroy). The scripts were submitted to a Bicentennial Committee of leading historians of the Constitution, and they were approved with no changes whatsoever. The final KP tapes then became the "official" Bicentennial tapes on the U.S. Constitution, as indicated by a medallion on the original packaging.

Ghs

[Peter]

Michael Stuart Kelly wrote:

I would be more inclined to give the interpretation you favor if there were treaties like that with, say, France or other non-theocratic countries.

end quote

Excellent point. My single, unattached, historian daughter (dating a newspaper reporter) is not available for comment at 9:45 on a Saturday night, though I am NOT sure she would know of our other treaties with major Western Powers, but she could look it up in her texts. Somebody wake George up. “I am the ghost of Christmas Past, George. Arise and follow me.”

My quibble with Michael’s argument is that there would be no need in diplomatic language to include or exclude theocratic references to England or France unlike a Musselman country though I think there would be no utilitarian reason to mention “God,” except in a salutation like “May god speed . . . “

This would be a good project for a writer. Wasn’t there somebody other than Ghs who wrote about the non-religious though deistic philosophical basis for our constitution back in the seventies?

Hurrah! George has chimed in. I will send this, then read what the maestro has written.

Peter (Alexis) de Tocqueville

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If Barton were here, I would probably be on his case for his Christianity exaggerations and omissions.

But I think people like him and Zinn (for a polar opposite) are basically good for debate and critical thinking. (Not taken separately, but considered within the churn.)

They are excellent for raising questions that should be raised and combating the nudges that constantly occur when a particular narrative starts gaining momentum.

They also know how to communicate their understanding of history to a broader public than intellectuals. That is an art in itself.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

In my view, within that context, the statement simply meant that the USA was not a Christian theocracy and had never been. I don't see where the USA government would have had any reason to assert the interpretation you favor with a hostile Islamic state during peace negotiations.

The passage in question was almost certainly written by Joel Barlow --a Radical Whig, a defender of the French Revolution, a deistic critic of Christianity, and a close friend of Thomas Paine who helped get Part One of Age of Reason (a complete and acerbic repudiation of Christianity) published in France.

Barlow meant exactly what he said: "the Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." And Barlow was absolutely right. The Constitution was the founding document of the U.S. government, and nowhere in that document is either God or Christianity mentioned. This was no accident or oversight. Nor is there anything specifically Christian about the content of the Constitution, e.g., the separation of powers and the enumerated powers listed in Article 1, Section 8. The U.S. Constitution is a thoroughly secular document.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

George, my grandfather would have loved conversations with you. At least one generation too far apart. I'd have loved to listen in.

--Brant

Irving Brant, James Madison in six vols.; The Bill of Rights, Its Origin and Meaning

[George H. Smith]

George, my grandfather would have loved conversations with you. At least one generation too far apart. I'd have loved to listen in. --Brant Irving Brant, James Madison in six vols.; The Bill of Rights, Its Origin and Meaning

Thanks, Brant.

As I think I told you years ago, I relied heavily on your grandfather's work while writing my four scripts on the Constitution, as well as the two I wrote on the Federalist Papers. Irving Brant did for Madison what Dumas Malone did for Jefferson (in his six volume biography of Jefferson). Both were superb scholars, but your grandfather was the better writer of the two.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

George, my grandfather would have loved conversations with you. At least one generation too far apart. I'd have loved to listen in. --Brant Irving Brant, James Madison in six vols.; The Bill of Rights, Its Origin and Meaning

Thanks, Brant. As I think I told you years ago, I relied heavily on your grandfather's work while writing my four scripts on the Constitution, as well as the two I wrote on the Federalist Papers. Irving Brant did for Madison what Dumas Malone did for Jefferson (in his six volume biography of Jefferson). Both were superb scholars, but your grandfather was the better writer of the two. Ghs

Brant,

I forgot to mention that I actually quoted your grandfather in one of my Constitution scripts, though it was a very brief quote and I don't think I mentioned him by name. (I almost never quoted secondary sources in my KP scripts, and I instructed other writers to follow my lead.)

As I recall, the quoted line had to do with Madison taking an uncompromising stand on something during the Convention and later compromising. I very much liked the way Irving Brant described the situation. He said that Madison dug a hole for himself and then "climbed out on a slant."

Ghs

[studiodekadent]

Here’s a fascinating example of the historical spin game. In 1797, the United States signed a treaty with the Muslim nation of Tripoli that contained the following provision:

As the Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the law, religion or tranquility of Musselmen; and as the states never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mohometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever produce an interruption of harmony existing between the two countries.

From Wallbuilders (David Barton):

The 1797 treaty with Tripoli was one of the many treaties in which each country officially recognized the religion of the other in an attempt to prevent further escalation of a "Holy War" between Christians and Muslims. . .

This article may be read in two manners. It may, as its critics do, be concluded after the clause "Christian religion"; or it may be read in its entirety and concluded when the punctuation so indicates [as shown above--DH]. But even if shortened and cut abruptly ("the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion"), this is not an untrue statement since it is referring to the federal government.

Recall that while the Founders themselves openly described America as a Christian nation, they did include a constitutional prohibition against a federal establishment; religion was a matter left solely to the individual States. Therefore, if the article is read as a declaration that the federal government of the United States was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, such a statement is not a repudiation of the fact that America was considered a Christian nation.

Barton again pulls a bait and switch.

"America was founded as a Christian Nation" may indeed be true if we use the broad and soft definition that MSK has in mind (and I believe Barton is using this same broad and soft definition here to 'prove' that America was founded as a Christian nation). By this broad definition, Catholics and Unitarians count as Christians, and "Christian Nation" clearly does not preclude a secular state.

But.

Barton and his Evangelical buddies then tighten the screws and start using "America is a Christian Nation" to argue that "America should be governed according to the principles of Evangelical fundamentalist Christianity." Which means they would not acknowledge either Catholics or Unitarians as "real" Christians, and they would reject a secular state.

Again, bait and switch. They start with a very, VERY loose definition of "Christian Nation" at the start of their argument, and THEN they tighten up the definition when they start drawing political implications from their argument.

In short, their definitions of "Christian Nation" and "Christian" and "Christian Values" are changed depending on what is politically convenient for them.

[Dennis Hardin]

Dennis,

It should be mentioned that the treaty was signed with a government that was, in fact, an Islamic theocracy.

Since there were not a lot of USA government statements like the one you quoted from those times (and I'm only presuming there were more because I don't know of any, although I did know about the wording in the treaty with Tripoli), I think it is reasonable to assume that the authors were trying to assure the Islamic theocratic government in Tripoli that the USA was not one of its traditional Christian theocratic enemies, or like those who favored religious warfare against Islam.

Michael,

David Barton makes the same point in the link I referenced above. One main problem with that interpretation is with the all-encompassing words, "...in any sense, founded..." The word "founded" refers to the philosophical origins of the government, not its guiding principles, and the phrase "in any sense" rules out any and all Christian-related interpretations of what the U.S. government stands for, not just the specific meaning of theocracy. The wording of the treaty was designed to completely dispense with any connection between the U.S. government and Christianity. That's the only logical reason for using those specific words.

For the interpretation you are making, the writers of the treaty could simply have said: "The U.S. government is in no way allied with the Christian religion," but the statement in the treaty is much more broadly exclusive than that.

Of course, you can easily respond by saying: "Well, maybe the treaty's author just got careless with his words." Or: "Well, maybe that specific wording had different implications 200 plus years ago."

And to that I say: "Well, maybe the entire treaty was encrypted and none of the words mean what they appear to mean."

Either you take the historical document at face value, or we spend endless hours debating the literary merits of fairy tales.

I would be more inclined to give the interpretation you favor if there were treaties like that with, say, France or other non-theocratic countries.

The issue would be unlikely to arise in a treaty with France. There is no reason to address the question of our religious heritage in a treaty where the other nation's religion was not a key source of potential conflict.

In my view, within that context, the statement simply meant that the USA was not a Christian theocracy and had never been. I don't see where the USA government would have had any reason to assert the interpretation you favor with a hostile Islamic state during peace negotiations.

Michael

Another problem with the "well, It said X, but they really meant Y" argument is that, as noted in the excerpt previously quoted, the actual wording was noncontroversial at the time. Here's the excerpt again:

The Journal of the Executive Proceedings of the United States Senate clearly specifies that the treaty was read aloud on the floor of the Senate and that copies of the treaty were printed "for the use of the Senate." Nor is it plausible to argue that perhaps Senators voted for the treaty without being aware of the famous words. The treaty was quite short, requiring only two or three pages to reprint in most treaty books today--and printed, in its entirely, on but one page (sometimes the front page) of U.S. newspapers of the day. The lack of any recorded argument about the wording, as well as the unanimous vote and the and the wide reprinting of the words in the press of 1797, suggests that the idea that the government was not a Christian one was widely and easily accepted at the time.

To repeat: we can either take the wording of the Treaty of Tripoli at face value, or we can play pedantic ping-pong all day long.

If it's all the same to you, I'd rather swap housekeeping secrets. I've got some real doozies.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Barlow meant exactly what he said: "the Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." And Barlow was absolutely right.

George,

Does this contradict what I said?

In my understanding, it doesn't.

Isn't this whole push-and-shove that constantly goes on basically semantics, i.e., what "Christian nation" means?

One side pushes and shoves to imply that Christisanity did not influence in any manner the political thinking back then (so the USA is in no sense a "Christian nation," Christianity was only a stupidity of the unwashed masses, and it was not taken seriously by the Founders) and the other side pushes and shoves to imply that Christisanity was all they were concerned with in politics (so the USA is a "Christian nation" to the root and the USA Constitution was secretly written by the Hand of God).

They don't say it that way. They just try to push and shove it in those directions.

That's my read.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Barton and his Evangelical buddies then tighten the screws and start using "America is a Christian Nation" to argue that "America should be governed according to the principles of Evangelical fundamentalist Christianity." Which means they would not acknowledge either Catholics or Unitarians as "real" Christians, and they would reject a secular state.

Andrew,

I don't agree with Barton on many things, but this mischaracterizes his position, at least according to what I have read and seen.

His argument is not about imposing Christianity on anyone. It is for allowing government officials to include their expressions of faith in discharging their duties. He is standing up to the removal of monuments from government buildings that, say, include the Ten Commandments, against prohibiting prayer for opening a meeting and things like that.

He openly supports Glenn Beck's "We're all Catholics now" movement against government encroachment, so where do you get that anti-Catholic stuff? I could on with other examples, but I believe getting familiar with his work (at least some basics) before judging it is in order.

I do agree that his side goes too far. Here's something from Snopes I believe would be to your liking: National Capital.

I don't think Barton would ever do something like that, but to be honest, I think he wouldn't be too quick or enthusiasitc to protest against it.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

To repeat: we can either take the wording of the Treaty of Tripoli at face value, or we can play pedantic ping-pong all day long.

Dennis,

Do you honestly believe that playing "pedantic ping-pong" is my motivation for looking at context?

Since when did ignoring context (even inconvenient context) ever mean taking something at face value conceptually?

Here's a clear example of what I am talking about and where hairsplitting is impossible. One of the Ten Commandments is "Thou shall not kill." Well, if we take that at "face value" in the way you describe, that would mean no one ever gets to eat. But somehow the human race survived back when it was presented as law by Moses.

Context is important to meaning. Including context in trying to correctly identify meaning is not an "it said X, but they really meant Y" game of semantics.

That is how I understand conceptual thinking. In fact, I only understand conceptual thinking by including context. A defintioin to me does not just have a differentia, it also has a genus. And I apply that pattern to my thinking in general (i.e, event and context, subject and background, detail and whole, etc.).

Sometimes the frame of reference is not convenient to our wishes of what should be. But our wishes will not change it's nature or make it go away.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

Here's a clear example of what I am talking about and where hairsplitting is impossible. One of the Ten Commandments is "Thou shall not kill." Well, if we take that at "face value" in the way you describe, that would mean no one ever gets to eat. But somehow the human race survived back when it was presented as law by Moses.

According to people who know about these things, "Thou shalt not kill" is better translated as "Thou shalt do no murder". The language refers to humans killing humans, not other animals or plants, over which humans have dominion, according to various verses in Genesis. It's always worth repeating, while we're talking here about context, that the scene immediately following the introduction of the 10 Commandments is one of slaughter. The cult of the Golden Calf was wiped out. Then, page ahead a little ways, and we get to the book of Joshua. Nasty stuff.

[George H. Smith]

Barlow meant exactly what he said: "the Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." And Barlow was absolutely right.

George, Does this contradict what I said? In my understanding, it doesn't. Isn't this whole push-and-shove that constantly goes on basically semantics, i.e., what "Christian nation" means? One side pushes and shoves to imply that Christisanity did not influence in any manner the political thinking back then (so the USA is in no sense a "Christian nation," Christianity was only a stupidity of the unwashed masses, and it was not taken seriously by the Founders) and the other side pushes and shoves to imply that Christisanity was all they were concerned with in politics (so the USA is a "Christian nation" to the root and the USA Constitution was secretly written by the Hand of God). They don't say it that way. They just try to push and shove it in those directions. That's my read. Michael

Saying that the U.S. government is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion does not mean the same as saying that the U.S. is not a theocracy. A theocracy is a nation ruled by a religious authority. A nation can have an established religion, as England and France did during the eighteenth century, without being a theocracy. Or a government can promote religion in some form, or show a preference for one religion over another, or impose religious tests for holding civil offices (as England did). or impose tithes for the support of religion, without being a theocracy.

Again, Barlow's statement refers specifically to the U.S. government, not to the nation (both terms had specific and well-understood meanings at the time); and in saying that the government was not founded, in any sense, on the Christian religion, it is clearly referring to the founding document of the government, i.e., the Constitution.

You present one side as saying that "Christianity did not influence in any manner the political thinking back then...." This characterization is too ambiguous to serve a useful purpose. And I frankly cannot think of any reputable historian who has ever said this.

The relevant point is whether or not the U.S. Constitution contains any points that are specifically Christian. It does not. The doctrine known as "separation of powers," for example, goes back to Greek and Roman times (most notably Polybius). Even the theoretical foundations of the Constitution, ideas not explicitly stated in the Constitution, are not specifically Christian. The notion of the "rule of law" is found in Aristotle, who was frequently cited as a standard source. One of the most commonly cited sources for the notion of "natural law" was Cicero, who had a profound influence on Christian thought. And so forth.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

Well I thought hairsplitting for that example was impossible...

I had a friend in Brazil who was a Jehovah's Witness (but he was an American). He said one of the reasons Jesus was sacrificed was so that man would no longer need to perform animal sacrifices to please God.

I asked him the obvious question about why killing animals would please Him in the first place. He said this was atonement for Eve's sin. I asked what a poor goat or ram had to do with Eve and he laughed.

I read a comment by a Marxist once (I believe it was on a forum devoted to exposing high yield scams) who talked about Jehovah's Witnesses. I think his comment applies to discussions like the present one (and I refer to all sides).

He said you can talk all day and even win the argument, but you will not change the person's mind.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You present one side as saying...

George,

I most definitely did not.

Here are my words once again:

They don't say it that way. They just try to push and shove it in those directions.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

He said one of the reasons Jesus was sacrificed was so that man would no longer need to perform animal sacrifices to please God.

That's a fair enough application of the reasoning St. Paul used in Galatians to explain why circumcision is no longer required.

The main excuse modern Jews have for not sacrificing animals is that the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed. They don't have the approved place to do it.

[George H. Smith]

Barton and his Evangelical buddies then tighten the screws and start using "America is a Christian Nation" to argue that "America should be governed according to the principles of Evangelical fundamentalist Christianity." Which means they would not acknowledge either Catholics or Unitarians as "real" Christians, and they would reject a secular state.

Andrew,

I don't agree with Barton on many things, but this mischaracterizes his position, at least according to what I have read and seen.

His argument is not about imposing Christianity on anyone. It is for allowing government officials to include their expressions of faith in discharging their duties. He is standing up to the removal of monuments from government buildings that, say, include the Ten Commandments, against prohibiting prayer for opening a meeting and things like that.

In his so-called "Detached Memoranda," James Madison -- who wrote the original draft of the First Amendment and shepherded the Bill of Rights through Congress -- argued that "the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress" violates the Establishment Clause of First Amendment. This practice was "a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles." Madison also opposed "Chaplainships for the army and navy" and "Religious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings & fasts." The latter, though "recommendations only, imply a religious agency, making no part of the trust delegated to political rulers."

Right-wingers like Barton frequently complain that their opponents wish to ban religion from "the public square," without explaining what this term is supposed to mean. Madison, in contrast, clearly distinguished the private activities of politicians from actions taken in their capacity as government officials:

In their individual capacities, as distinct from their official station, they might unite in recommendations of any sort whatever, in the same manner as any other individuals might do...,

Madison goes on to criticize a "day of thanksgiving" proclaimed by Washington, as well as one by John Adams ("which called for Xn worship").

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

You present one side as saying...

George,

I most definitely did not.

Here are my words once again:

They don't say it that way. They just try to push and shove it in those directions.

Michael

What you actually said was "One side pushes and shoves to imply...."

Okay, to "say" is not the same thing as to "imply," so I will rephrase my point: What reputable historian has ever implied that "Christianity did not influence in any manner the political thinking back then"?

Ghs

[Peter]

Ghs wrote:

Madison goes on to criticize a "day of thanksgiving" proclaimed by Washington, as well as one by John Adams ("which called for Xn worship").

end quote

Excellent post George, but what is “Xn worship?”

Peter