Claimants of the Constitution: A National Religion

Though the summer and its events have delayed some articles, you have before you the second article comparing the ideology of Federalists and Anti-Federalists to that of the Republicans and Democrats. Having already discussed taxation and the use of military force, today's article will examine how the Anti-Federalists and Federalists fought over the issue of a national religion.

Of all the cultural issues which vex the United States, few are as dominant in the public mind as the relevance of Christianity to the past, present, and future of the Republic. Since the advent of the Thirteen Colonies, the United States has been a majority Christian nation (and until recently, a majority Protestant one). Even today seventy percent of citizens identify as Protestant, Catholic, Latter Day Saint, Jehovah's Witness, Orthodox, or others sharing the Christian tradition. Yet, in spite of what some proclaim, the Founding Fathers eschewed a national Christian religion for another option.

The Anti-Federalists, basing their arguments on the civic city-states of ancient Athens, the merchant states of Italy, and the constitutional system of Great Britain, believed the newborn country required a unifying force in a shared religion. Unsurprising, they believed this religion should be Protestantism. And to maintain this bond, they argued any national government should support Protestantism with specific protections and monetary assistance. They wanted a religious test for office, like those of the states. By 1702 eight of the original thirteen colonies already honored an official state religion. Even those which did not employed religious tests, requiring potential office holders to subscribe to a certain degree of belief. For instance, between 1780 and 1833 Massachusetts required any person elected governor, lieutenant-governor, senator, or representative to declare themselves as Christians before they were allowed to enter office. Though New Hampshire's state constitution of 1784 contained flowery words extolling the right of all people to personal conscious and the free exercise of their religion, the state required officials to be Protestant. It wasn't until 1990 that the New Hampshire constitution was amended to eliminate this requirement, (though all State religions and religious tests were effectively abolished by the 14th Amendment in 1868). And even though Pennsylvania had no state religion, it required all office holders to declare their belief in a divinely inspired Old and New Testament.

In this atmosphere of pervasive Protestantism, why doesn't the United States have a national religion? The resistance of the Founding Fathers. Especially educated men, eager to imbibe the prescription of the British doctor and philosopher John Locke, they did not believe in a union between government and church. In sync with the spirit of the Age of Enlightenment, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Federalist Pamphleteers James Madison and Alexander Hamilton all ascribed to Deism. Deists believe in a natural religion, of a singular, disinterested god. Their belief is written into the Nation's most famous documents. Thomas Jefferson's famous words of the Declaration trumpet his compatriots' truth, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people … to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them ... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Not a single instance of Christ or Christianity features in the Declaration. This is not to say they were exclusively non-christian for their Deism was undoubtedly flavored by the broader Christian culture in which they lived.

Yet they resisted apply the public's religion, and at Constitutional convention refused to enshrine Protestantism as the official faith of the United States. Turning to the Federalist Papers, Hamilton and Madison convincingly discredit the claim Protestants make to their unique civic virtue. In the fifty-second article, discussing the qualifications and fitness of representatives Madison writes, “Under these reasonable limitations, the door of this part of the federal government is open to merit of every description, whether native or adoptive, whether young or old, and without regard to poverty or wealth, or to any particular profession of religious faith.” As long as the candidate for the house of representatives is twenty-five, seven years a citizen, a resident of the state they intend to represent, and holding no other office, they are eligible. As Madison says, it matters not whether they were born a citizen or which religion they profess, they are eligible. This does not do enough though to advance the equality of religions, and Madison addresses another issue more pointedly.

Everyone believes there are certain religious beliefs which so disastrous as to be a disqualification for office in the United States. But, in Federalist Paper 57, Madison asks the reader to consider the quality of the candidate regardless of belief, “Who are to be the objects of popular choice? Every citizen whose merit may recommend him to the esteem and confidence of his country. No qualification of wealth, of birth, of religious faith, or of civil profession is permitted to fetter the judgment or disappoint the inclination of the people.” He asks the voter to not judge a candidate by broad religious preconceptions, but by their merit and policy proposals. Prejudging with prejudice on the basis of religion alone, Madison understands, will lead the voter to approach candidates narrowly, overriding personal distinction with their own biases and stereotypes.

In the final account, the Constitution itself is very clear about the country's dedication to religious pluralism. In Article Six the document says, “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” This, along with the 1st Amendment are part of the broader understanding of public religion in the United States. Yet, as the United States is built on many faiths, presidents such as Washington, Lincoln, Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt, Kennedy and more have recognized value in a ceremonial Deism, a single, nondescript Being who omnisciently oversees the good of the nation, an admittedly imperfect identity for an increasingly diverse nation.

For though the United States was, is, and will be a religious nation, and though Christianity in one form or another still represents the majority, it is a much more diverse Christianity than the monolithic Protestantism of 1776. It is an even more diverse non-Christian nation as time passes. Six percent of Americans are followers of another faith, while twenty-three percent are unaffiliated (agnostic, atheist, or nothing in particular).

Upon this issue, it is clear that the Federalists and their design of a state which sanctions no religion, raises no faith above any other, align with the Democratic party who embrace religious pluralism, while the Republicans currently agree with the Anti-Federalist's belief, that the Republic requires a virtuous citizenry unified by a singular religious organization.

For anyone with further interest in the topic of the religion of the Founding Fathers, I recommend, American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation by Jon Meacham.

Next week, a discussion of the final issue, that of the balance of power between the National government and the States.

Recent:

Originalism and the Federalist Papers

Comments