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
Post a Comment