These pages are for answering frequently asked questions which should be of interest to most readers of this web site. E-mail your question; and, if chosen, a response will be posted hereon. For example:
Q: Where in the Constitution are the words "separation of church and state"?
A: Those exact words are not in the Constitution, but there are many words which are not in the Constitution, such as, God, Christianity, Judeo-Christian principles, etc. Therefore, the proper question is, Where in the Constitution is stated the principle of separation between religion and government? An October 7, 1999, letter in the Wichita Eagle raised the same question. On Oct. 21, my reply was published:
(1) In 1787 the Founding Fathers (including James Madison) deliberately and clearly wrote (Art. 6., Sec. 3.): "No religious test" shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
(2) In 1789 a Senate-House conference committee, of which James Madison was cochairman, wrote (First Amendment): Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of "religion."
(3) In 1811 President James Madison said (Feb. 21 veto message): "Governments are limited by the essential distinction between civil and religious functions."
(4) In an undated essay, James Madison wrote (see William and Mary Quarterly, 1946, 3:555): "Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."
I guess I could have added, James Madison said it, I believe it, and that settles it!
It should also be made clear that proper terminology is important to proper understanding of what the Constitution does say. The constitutional issue is about separation between "religion" and government, not simply "church and state." The word "church" is not in the Constitution; the constitutional word is "religion." Use of the terminology "church and state" is misleading and inaccurate. The Constitution does not forbid just a "church" test; it forbids a "religious" test. The Constitution does not simply prohibit Congress from making "church" laws; it forbids Congress from making "religion" laws. It is "religion" which is not to be established by law. Use of proper terminology will eliminate much confusion in regard to the constitutional principle of separation.
THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Q: Why did I leave out the words under God in the pledge of allegiance as printed at the end of "The Supreme Law of the Land" essay?
A: During my years in school from 1941 through 1953, the words under God were never recited as a part of the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I continue to repeat the pledge today just as I did then.
The pledge of allegiance was not drafted by the Founding Fathers; it originated in 1892. In 1954 the Congress of the United States was controlled by a Republican party majority which added the words under God to the pledge, and the legislation was signed by the Republican president, Dwight David Eisenhower. The impetus for adding the words under God to the pledge was politics.
Today, the words under God are repeated by Christians, the Jews and Muslims say "under God indivisible," while atheists and some others of us citizens, simply omit them. Of course, Jehovah's Witnesses refuse any such pledge; but, we are Americans all. And as long as the flag of the United States of America freely flies over its territory, every American can believe whatever he or she chooses about God. I thank the Founding Fathers for the USA.
G.I. BILL
Q: I believe the so-called GI Bill also allows federal money to go to private and religious schools, even to the training of clergy at seminaries. So, in addition to the Pell grants (which are loans and must be paid back) and other programs, there is the educational funding for vets which is spent at the institution of choice.
A: Dave, I used the GI Bill and obtained a degree majoring in religion at a private church related university (Baylor). GI Bill payments are not grants; they are payments for services rendered and are based on actual service to the nation--military service. Such payments are no different from wages for federal employees who are paid for services rendered with public money and who may spend that money wherever they choose because it is upon payment for services rendered that it becomes private money, no longer federal or public money. That is a distinction.
There has also been a distinction made by the courts in regard to public money going to institutions of higher education, in contrast to institutions of elementary and secondary education, based upon the difference in age and the impressionability factor. The assumption is that older students are more capable of thinking for themselves when confronted with religious indoctrination.
Furthermore, because I personally accompanied the attorney who filed the 1974 challenge to the Kansas tuition grant program for students attending the private church colleges of Kansas, I will relay to you the essence of the decision: The Court ruled in favor of the grants, but the private church colleges are no longer allowed to require religion classes, chapel, or a religious affiliation on an application for enrollment. What the government finances, it has the right to regulate. The case was not appealed. Do I agree with the Federal District Court's basic decision to allow state tuition grants to students attending private colleges? No, but I do agree with the Court's decision to regulate required religion out of those schools. Nevertheless, in America we are a nation of law--the Court has the last word as to what will and will not be allowed in regard to constitutionality. That is the way the system works in America. The Constitution is not a blueprint for anarchy; we obey the laws. And, just as you would possibly vote to amend the Constitution to allow for public funding of private schools, I will work to continue the traditional conservative American principle of public funds for public institutions and the unique American principle of separation between religion and government--a wise lesson from history. By the way, a person who wants to rewrite the Establishment Clause and add another financial pap on the federal sow or state nanny is not a conservative.
WE THE PEOPLE
Q: Who says what is right and wrong? If the Bible, a religious book, cannot be used in deciding right and wrong, then what decides?
A: Ronald, thanks for the questions. As has been noted before, the founding Constitution says nothing about God, Christianity, a Judeo-Christian heritage, the Torah, the Bible, or the Koran. America is not a theocracy. However, the United States of America is a nation based upon the principle of law--civil law: "the law established by a nation or state for its own jurisdiction" (Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary).
In America, as adopted by "we the people," the "Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made . . . under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitutions or laws of any states to the contrary notwithstanding" (Art. VI). By the way, the word notwithstanding is common legaleze terminology meaning "in spite of"; the sentence would be easier read by most contemporary Americans if it were concluded as follows: in spite of anything in the constitutions or laws of any states to the contrary. Nevertheless, the Constitution provides for a representative republic which is composed of law makers democratically elected by a majority vote of the registered citizens who get out to vote.
The answer, then, to your questions is simple: "we the people" determine the laws, through our elected officials, and, thereby, the ethical standard of conduct of "right and wrong" which governs our society. Morality is the level at which Americans live up to the standard established by their laws. One of my professors (T. B. Maston) at the seminary used to make the distinction between ethics and morality this way: "ethics is what ought to be, morality is what is."
Of course, every citizen has a right to attempt to influence legislators who make the laws; if, for example, you do not like the Constitution as written or the laws made by Congress, you have the opportunity to try to get them amended or eliminated. In the meantime, as Americans, regardless of religious persuasion, we honor the rule of law under the Constitution as agreed to by the majority beginning in 1788.
As for religion, America has so far avoided religious wars and the fragmentation of Europe because the Constitution, including the First Amendment, has provided peace mainly due to (as Tocqueville said in 1835) "the separation of church and state. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point" (Democracy in America, 1945, 1:308).
As Adventists, atheists, Buddhists, Christian Scientists, deists, Hindus, Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Muslims, Roman Catholics, witches, and Zoroastrians, "we the people" make the laws. Thank God for the USA.
WAS THOMAS JEFFERSON A DEIST?
History revisionist and professor of constitutional law at Faulkner University,
While it must be admitted that the words "I am a Deist" are not recorded, the allegation is: "it was mentioned that you was a Deist" (Papers of Thomas Jefferson, 27:39).
Dumas Malone says the charge most often made against Jefferson was atheist: "it was not only made in the public press, it was hurled from pulpits in various places, most of all probably in Connecticut. ... Actually, he was a deist" (Jefferson and His Time, 3:481).
Funk & Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary (1952) includes in the definition of Deist: "One who believes in God but denies supernatural revelation." There is no question Jefferson rejected the Bible as divine revelation and rejected the divinity of Jesus. In the Declaration of Independence Jefferson's appeal was to the God of the Deist, "Nature's God," not specifically to the God of Christianity (see letter dated Sep. 14, 1813, to Jefferson from John Adams equating "Nature's God" with "the revelation from nature").
As President, Jefferson occasionally attended church services; but, he was not a communing member of any Christian church. Further, he refused to proclaim any national days of prayer or thanksgiving.
Jefferson says he was a "Materialist" (letter to Short, Apr. 13, 1820) and a "Unitarian" (letter to Waterhouse, Jan. 8, 1825). Jefferson rejected the Christian doctrine of the "Trinity" (letter to Derieux, Jul. 25, 1788), as well as the doctrine of an eternal Hell (letter to Van der Kemp, May 1, 1817). Further, Jefferson specifically named Joseph Priestly (English Unitarian who moved to America) and Conyers Middleton (English Deist) and said: "I rest on them ... as the basis of my own faith" (letter to Adams, Aug. 22, 1813). Therefore, without using the actual words, Jefferson issued an authentic statement claiming Deism as his faith. The 1971 (ninth edition) Encyclopedia Britannica, 7:183, states the following: "By the end of the 18th century deism had become a dominant religious attitude among upper-class Americans, and the first three presidents of the United States held this conviction, as is amply evidenced in their correspondence." Therefore, it is appropriate to quote the two following paragraphs from the correspondence of President Thomas Jefferson wherein he wrote specifically about deism, as taught by Jesus.
"In consequence of some conversation with Dr. Rush, in the year 1798-99, I had promised some day to write him a letter giving him my view of the Christian system. I have reflected often on it since, & even sketched the outlines in my own mind. I should first take a general view of the moral doctrines of the most remarkable of the antient [ancient] philosophers, of whose ethics we have sufficient information to make an estimate, . . . . I should then take a view of the deism and ethics of the Jews, and show in what a degraded state they were, and the necessity they presented of a reformation. I should proceed to a view of the life, character, & doctrines of Jesus, who sensible of incorrectness of their ideas of the Deity, and of morality, endeavored to bring them to the principles of a pure deism, and juster notions of the attributes of God, to reform their moral doctrines to the standard of reason, justice & philanthropy, and to inculcate the belief of a future state. This view would purposely omit the question of his divinity, & even his inspiration. To do him justice, it would be necessary to remark . . . that his system of morality was the most benevolent & sublime probably that has been ever taught, and consequently more perfect than those of any of the antient philosophers." (Ltr. to Joseph Priestly, Apr. 9, 1803.)
"I had believed that [Connecticut was] the last retreat of monkish darkness, bigotry, and abhorrence of those advances of the mind which had carried the other States a century ahead of them. ... I join you, therefore, in sincere congratulations that this den of the priesthood is at length broken up, and that a Protestant Popedom is no longer to disgrace the American history and character. If by religion we are to understand [i.e., to mean] sectarian dogmas, in which no two of them agree, then your exclamation on that hypothesis is just, 'that this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.' But if the moral precepts, innate in man, and made a part of his physical constitution, as necessary for a social being, if the sublime doctrines of philanthropism and deism taught us by Jesus of Nazareth, in which all agree, constitute true religion, then, without it, this would be, as you again say, 'something not fit to be named even, indeed, a hell.'" (Ltr. to Adams, May 5, 1817,Writings,A.A.Lipscomb,15:108-109.)
IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD
Q: Is the phrase which dates the Constitution a declaration and profession of religious faith--a specific acknowledgement of God--by the Founding Fathers?
A: Dianne, the general calendar used in 1787 in Britain and America was introduced in 1582 by Roman Catholic Pope Gregory XIII. It was common for the phrase "in the year of our Lord" to be used in dating all kinds of religious and secular or legal documents. For instance, the formal probate statement which in 1809 validated the last will of Thomas Paine uses the same terminology as used in dating the Constitution. The words "in the year of our Lord" were merely commonplace terminology used in the dating of documents. In 1787 and 1809 the phrase was a commonly worded affirmation of a date according to the Christian calendar--a historical hangover from the past when church and state were united and Christianity was established and imposed by law. It was precisely that kind of past relationship which the Founding Fathers and the majority of Americans rejected when they adopted the Constitution and the First Amendment. Nevertheless, the Gregorian calendar determines the year (A.D. or B.C) in relation to the birth of Jesus; therefore, use of "Lord" obviously and specifically refers to Jesus, not God. Today we normally use simply the date of the year itself (1998). Both ways utilize the Christian calendar; but, use of the Christian calendar date is not a profession of faith today anymore than it was in 1787 because Americans are free to believe whatever they choose in regard to religion.
Thus, any attempt to use the phrase "our Lord" as proof of belief in God, the doctrine of the trinity, or the proposition that Jesus is Lord, by everyone who signs their name to a document dated in terms recognizing the Christian calendar, is obviously invalid. Some who used those commonplace terms were Christian, but some were not. Founding Father Benjamin Franklin was a deist; use of the "our Lord" terminology by which the Constitution was dated was not a profession of religious faith by him and did not make him a Christian. In other words, if you insist that "our Lord" is a profession of belief in Jesus as Lord, then everyone who signs a document using such terminology is--by your test--a Christian. However, the terms "our Lord" obviously did not apply to everyone who signed documents using the phrase "in the year of our Lord" because, for example, Franklin was not a Christian. The Founding Fathers (Article 6) made it clear that in America there would be "no religious test." The dating terminology was common wording for secular and legal documents, regardless of the religious persuasion of the person about whom the document involved.
JAMES MADISON AND SECTARIAN EDUCATION
Q: [When you write about James Madison's "Memorial and Remonstrance" and his objection to the use of public tax money for teachers of the Christian Religion,] it seems that the quotes you cite are simply Madison's objections to government-paid religion teachers. State government funds for schooling have long been seen as a good idea, schooling referring in this case to learning how to read and write. What does Madison have to say in regard to this?
A: Ronald, thanks for the good question and the opportunity to provide some information which I hope will be of value. Of course, no one objects to use of public tax money for public institutions or for public education. So, I can only add James Madison's view --in his own words--of the relationship between religion and government as it relates to education. And, I will refer you to the 1974 Newsweek book James Madison: A Biography in His Own Words by Merrill D. Peterson (Professor of History, University of Virginia).
Peterson writes of Madison's passion for the "conquest of ignorance" and points out that in the same year (1785) that Madison protested against the "bill establishing a provision (public tax money) for teachers of the Christian religion," he also "tried and failed to win legislative approval of Jefferson's comprehensive plan of public education. . . . His essentially civic conception of education, as an ally of republican government, is developed in a letter to William T. Barry of Kentucky" dated August 4, 1822:
Learned Institutions ought to be favorite objects with every free people. They throw that light over the public mind which is the best security against crafty & dangerous encroachments on the public liberty. They are nurseries of skilful Teachers for the schools distributed throughout the Community. . . .
. . . At cheaper & nearer seats of Learning parents with slender incomes may place their sons in a course of Education putting them on a level with the sons of the richest. . . .
It is among the happy peculiarities of our Union . . . [that is,] the merit of diffusing the light and the advantages of public Instruction. [pp.379-380.]
Peterson continues:
Madison was closely associated with Jefferson in founding the University of Virginia. It was to be, among other things, a secular institution in strict conformity to the principle of separation of Church and State. The idea of a 'godless university' was novel, threatening to Virginia's evangelical leadership, and the university rose over its opposition. For Madison, freedom of religion was involved with freedom of mind and therefore with what would later be called academic freedom. It was the one principle upon which there could be no compromise. He stated his views in a letter to [the unitarian] Edward Everett, then a professor and later president of Harvard--a university that still labored under the constraints of its Puritan founding. [p.381.]
This is what Madison wrote on March 19, 1823:
I am not surprised at the dilemma [problem] produced at your University [Harvard], by making Theological Professorships an integral part of the System. The anticipation of such an one [dilemma], led to the omission in ours [Virginia]; the Visitors [guest teachers] being merely authorized to open a public Hall for religious occasion, under impartial regulations; with the opportunity to different Sects to establish their Theological Schools, so near that the Students of the University may respectively attend the religious exercises in them. . . .
A University with Sectarian professorships, becomes of course, a Sectarian Monopoly; . . . without any such professorship [like at the University of Virginia], it must incur [inherit]. . . the imputation [accusation] of irreligious tendencies if not designs. . . .
On this view of the subject, there seems to be no alternative. . .
The difficulty of reconciling the Christian mind to the absence of religious Tuition [Instruction] from a University, established by Law & at the common [public tax money] expense, is probably less with us [in Virginia] than with you [in Massachusetts]. The settled opinion here is that religion is essentially distinct from Civil Govt. and exempt from its cognizance; that a connexion between them is injurious to both; that there are causes in the human breast which ensure the perpetuity of religion without the aid of the law; . . . and finally, that these opinions are supported by experience, which has shewn that every relaxation [easing] of the Alliance between Law & Religion, . . . has been found as safe in practice as it is sound in Theory. [pp. 381-382.]
Sorry this is so long, Ronald; but, in answer to your specific question about the teaching of reading and writing, I would paraphrase Madison's above statement: A school with sectarian teachers, becomes of course, a church school--a church. Public funds are for public institutions. Religion, except for the academic study of it, is a matter for individuals, homes, parochial schools, and churches; religion is not the business of government and is not to be established by law--that is a lesson the majority of America's forefathers learned from history.
NATIONAL DAYS OF PRAYER AND CONGRESSIONAL CHAPLAINS
Q: If James Madison really believed in "separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States" (his words from his essay "Monopolies," William and Mary Quarterly, 3:555), why did he issue presidential proclamations for national days of prayer?
A: Madison addressed this question as a "deviation from the strict principle . . . in the eye of the Constitution" in his July 10, 1822, letter to Edward Livingston in terms of the distinction between "the language of injunction" (required) and language "without any penal sanction enforcing the worship" (voluntary). No such proclamations were issued by President Jefferson or during the first four years of Madison's term. However, under the duress of the War of 1812 President Madison was being pressured by Congress--congressional resolutions--to issue a proclamation as Washington and Adams had done. During the years 1812 through 1815 ("the war in which He has been pleased to permit"), Madison signed proclamations and in 1822 gave the following explanation:
Whilst I was honored with the Executive Trust I found it necessary on more than one occasion to follow the example of predecessors. But I was always careful to make the Proclamations absolutely indiscriminate, and merely recommendatory; or rather mere designations of a day, on which all who thought proper might unite in consecrating it to religious purposes according to their own faith & forms. . . . Notwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries . . . in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov[ernment] & Religion neither can be duly supported. . . . Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance.
The significance of the distinction is between a resolution (or a nonbinding suggestion) and a law. Congress shall make no "law"; but, there is no constitutional prohibition against congressional resolutions.
Q: Was James Madison in the First Congress and on the House committee which approved of congressional chaplains?
A: Yes; but, he was outvoted. In "Monopolies," Madison writes that "the establishment of the chaplainship to Congress is a palpable [an obvious] violation of . . . constitutional principles." In the same July 10, 1822, letter mentioned above, Madison said: "It was not with my approbation [approval] that the deviation from it took place in Cong[ress], when they appointed Chaplains, to be paid from the Nat[ional] Treasury." It was Madison's position that congressmen should" discharge their religious duties . . . at their own expence." As for the chaplains, he wrote: "Are not the daily devotions conducted by these legal ecclesiastics already degenerating into a scanty attendance, and a tiresome formality?"
SCHOOL CHOICE
Q: Are you opposed to school choice?
A: Absolutely not, and I do not know of anyone else who is either. I am a graduate of two private church schools. However, I do know many persons who are opposed to use of public money for sending students to private schools. I agree with the Supreme Court of the United States which has said: "No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion" (Everson v. Board, 1947, 330 U.S. at 15). All Americans are free to choose and attend--at their own expense--a private school; and, no one objects. What proponents of the misnamed "school choice" propaganda want is public money.
JUSTICE JOSEPH STORY
Q.: Opponents of separation between religion and government often
cite Associate Justice
A.: Story was born, 1779, in Massachusetts--the last of the states(1833) to prohibit use of state government and tax money for support of religious institutions. He was not even born when the colonists signed the Declaration of Independence. He was eight years old when the Philadelphia constitutional convention ended. He was 10 years old when the religion clauses of the First Amendment were written. He was, obviously, not involved in the creation of the Constitution or the First Amendment. Story graduated from Harvard in 1798. In 1811 President Madison, after receiving rejections from his first three choices, appointed Story to the Supreme Court--over the objection of Thomas Jefferson who correctly considered Story a "psuedo-republican." Story became the Court's foremost proponent of federal jurisdiction over the states. In 1833, Story compiled his Commentaries in an effort to combat the twin evils (in his mind) of democracy and states' rights. Story was raised in a Congregational family, but at Harvard he became a Unitarian. However, unlike the unitarian Thomas Jefferson, who advocated a strict separationist position, Story, regarding religion and government, upheld an accommodationist position still advocated in his day by a minority of Americans--there have always been such Americans. Nevertheless, contemporary revisionists use Story improperly when they assert that his written statements regarding religion and government define the prevailing position of the Founding Fathers and the members of the First Congress.
OLLIE NORTH: COMMON SENSE OR NONSENSE?
Q: Is
A: Nonsense!
1. Art.6,Sec.3: "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
2. First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
3.
Q: Is Ollie North correct in saying (Nov. 3, 1997) that according to The Federalist papers, America's "whole premise, going back to the seminal documents of this country, was based on very firm Judeo- Christian principles"?
A: Nonsense!
1. The Federalist papers never use Ollie North's words "Judeo-Christian principles." The Constitution for the United States of America never uses the words Judeo-Christian, Christian, God, or Bible.
2. The principle respecting religion upon which this country is founded is religious autonomy--the right of every man and every woman to make up his or her own mind as to what he or she chooses to believe and support respecting religion. Religion is a matter of individual opinion and, as such, is not within the jurisdiction of government. Therefore, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and, no religious test shall ever be required for any office or public trust under the United States. The Founding Fathers and the Congressmen who worded the Constitution and the First Amendment clearly established a principle of separation between religion and government.
3. In Reynolds (98 U.S. at 164, 1879) the Supreme Court of the United States accepted President Thomas Jefferson's deliberate definition of the religion clauses as "building a wall of separation between Church & State." In Supreme Court decisions Everson (330 U.S. at 59, 1947) and McCollum (333 U.S. at 232, 1948) is the following assertion: "We have staked the very existence of our country on the faith that complete separation between the state and religion is best for the state and best for religion." The justices on these 1879, 1947, and 1948 courts were not liberals or communists; they were patriotic, conservative Americans who had done their homework and accepted the Constitution as written.
Q: Many times on his national radio broadcast, Oliver North has harangued President Bill Clinton for sending his daughter to a private school while at the same time opposing school choice for all American children. Is Oliver North using common sense?
A: Oliver North's argument is nonsense. No one opposes school choice. The issue is public money. President Clinton did not use public money with which to pay for his daughter's private school education. Oliver North wants another pap on the federal sow from which public money would flow to private schools.
