On Freedom and Religion
 

It helps to know that the Bill of Rights, those ten additions to the American Constitution which constitute our only defense against a corrupt government, were not wanted by a majority of the delegates at the 1787 convention.  The Constitution presented to the states for ratification did not include them.

It is helpful to know this, because of the slant it puts on a particular, widespread belief about religious freedom in this country.    It is commonly held (and demonstrated with the most eloquent quotes) that the Framers were largely Christians who wanted the freedom to worship God without persecution.  To those who believe this, it seems obvious that any interpretation of religious freedom, to be very accurate, must therefore be guided with this in mind.  From here, the views scatter: a very narrow view is that religious freedom meant simply the freedom to worship God, and nothing else.  A more moderate view, held by more Americans, says that while freedom of religion was guaranteed for all (legal) religions, it was so written only as a necessary evil to clear the way for the freedom to worship God.  An almost liberal view, held by many non-religious as well, takes this farther and suggests religious freedom was simply an attempt, perhaps a bit short-sighted, to be fair.  To any who hold these views, it is impossible that the Christian Framers desired total separation of church and state in the sense this is currently conceived - which includes erasing all state endorsement of Christianity.

So when the 9th Circuit ruled that a state propagated Pledge of Allegiance cannot say we are 'one nation under God', they all howled that this was an injustice, an overstepping of bounds which none of the Framers wanted.  These throngs were joined by all those who mistakenly thought this was an attack on patriotism - a mistake which leaves me speechless.  Together they resolved to keep the Pledge safe from the 'revisionists' who want to reinterpret the Constitution.

Eventually, they will lose.  They will lose in the same way and for the same reasons that slavery was abolished and women's suffrage succeeded.  Congress will continue to obstruct the progression by passing charged laws based on narrow judicial interpretation, probably for many years, but in the end 'Religious Freedom' is as clear and as powerful a concept as 'Equality'.

They will lose in the courts because the intentions of the Framers regarding religion and other issues were not clearly known, nor is it possible for these intentions to be used as a guideline in interpreting the document itself.  None of the Framers liked the entire Constitution.  All of them liked some of it.  These were contract negotiations, and it was unknown until the end whether they could agree to sign the deal.  Many signed reluctantly, under pressures created by the various delegates - in short, all were neck deep in interpretation and negotiation.  This was compounded by the initial refusal of the states to ratify without a Bill of Rights to protect against the Powers which had been created, eventually ratifying only with the sworn promise that the Congress would produce these Rights immediately.  It is pretty clear that, had they not done so, the Constitution could not have survived longer than the Articles of Confederation.  To suggest that a finished article in the Constitution should be construed a certain way, since this or that Framer had a particular belief in God or opinion on the concept of Religious Freedom, ignores the reality of the document as a contract, hammered out by men of vastly varied beliefs and, as importantly, interests.  In fact, the more clear a Framer was on his beliefs regarding the moral superiority of his religion, the more clear are we on what exactly he negotiated away in order to reach agreement.

They will lose in the high courts because Religious Freedom, as added to the Constitution, does indeed necessarily include freedom from religion, and it does include the separation of church and state.  Moreover, it is already quite plain that religious freedom includes moral freedom, which has more far-reaching consequences.  Again, the courts have started down this path, to which they are constrained by the Constitution, and while many in Congress will continue to obstruct, they cannot ultimately succeed.  Yes, reference to God will disappear from the Pledge, as well as from our currency.  Mormons will be allowed to marry as many wives as they want, Native Americans will be allowed to use drugs as religious sacraments, etc.  All this is as it should be for a people who have been promised freedom of religion.

It helps to know that the Framers did not want this freedom.  This was entirely in keeping with their religious beliefs.  Again, had Congress not included a very strong and stark concept of such freedom in the Bill of Rights, the Constitution could not have lasted.  The religious Framers who wanted to retain dominance for their religion lost in the first round, as did Framers who owned slaves.  Yes, it takes time to play out, but play out it will.  Bear in mind that the court did not define 'Equality' for many years after ratification, and it took more than a hundred years after that (1982 to be precise) to actually enforce the court's orders.  So it will go with religious dominance.

If you are religious, my advice to you is to live with it.  It doesn't hurt you.  I can't for the life of me figure out why you think it does.
 

July 7, 2002