Spiritual and Secular
In the current American political discourse, many Republicans, most notably the Bush faction, have been trying to describe themselves as spiritual people, embracing moral values and religious beliefs, while portraying the Democrats as secular people, having only a worldly outlook without spiritual values. These erroneous simplifications do us all a great disservice.
As with most such nonsense, we can best set matters straight by clarifying some fundamentals. We all know there is physical reality, starting with our own bodies and the physical objects that surround us. But we also know there is another kind of reality that is not physical and which includes invisibles we know exist, such as our thoughts and feelings.
So how should we discuss these realities if we want to have a clear political discourse? First we need to recognize that we are all spiritual people because we all have thoughts and feelings, and we each apply our own thoughts and feelings to arrive at our moral values and beliefs. We also must admit that we are physical presences in a world of physical materials and therefore of necessity must participate in that world.
The Constitution of the USA was designed by the Founders to work in both a spiritual and physical way. Spiritually it embodies the thoughts and feelings of those who founded this country and the moral values and beliefs they held. Physically, it sets out a framework for the mechanics of the people and the government dealing with each other and with the physical world in which we live.
The Founders purposely chose not to make the Constitution a religious document. They knew that the various religions were groups of people with somewhat differing specific sets of moral values and beliefs based on a concept of worship of some form of supernatural sentience, and that they expected their members to adhere to their specific beliefs. From experience the Founders also knew that some religious groups would try to force their own set of beliefs on other people through the vehicle of a national government which would persecute those with opposing beliefs. To prevent this from happening in America, the Founders specifically provided in the First Amendment to the Constitution that the government would not allow any religious group to use the government for religious purposes nor allow the government to abuse any religious group.
Over time, the Constitution has been amended to reflect further thinking resulting in changes in values and beliefs, two notable examples being the abolition of slavery and the extension to women of the right to vote. No serious attempt has ever been made to repeal the religious protections of the First Amendment, but many laws through the years have been enacted and then found to be unconstitutional violations of the Amendment. Use of government funds for "faith based initiatives" may be one of the next ones found to be in violation.
To say the Bush Republicans are spiritual and have moral values is meaningless, since all of us are spiritual and have moral values. The Bush people should instead be called religious, and to the extent their political agenda includes religious initiatives, it will have to comply with the First Amendment religion provisions. For example, to say government money should be given to a group that believes drug addicts can be helped by a program that includes beliefs and moral values on how to live should be no problem, but when the group is a religion as defined above and when the religious belief is a part of the help given, then it is actually a prohibited "religion involved initiative".
What about calling Democrats secular? Secular is a word that literally means physical as opposed to spiritual. But in the context of American political discussion it has traditionally meant non-religious, like our Constitution is. Secular does not mean without spiritual values, it just means without religious values included. The Constitution is spiritual but not religious - it is spiritual and secular. The Founders knew then and the Democrats know now that most people, including Democrats, are religious. But the Democrats, like the Founders and in contrast to the Bush Republicans, know the wisdom of keeping religion and government separate.
As with most such nonsense, we can best set matters straight by clarifying some fundamentals. We all know there is physical reality, starting with our own bodies and the physical objects that surround us. But we also know there is another kind of reality that is not physical and which includes invisibles we know exist, such as our thoughts and feelings.
So how should we discuss these realities if we want to have a clear political discourse? First we need to recognize that we are all spiritual people because we all have thoughts and feelings, and we each apply our own thoughts and feelings to arrive at our moral values and beliefs. We also must admit that we are physical presences in a world of physical materials and therefore of necessity must participate in that world.
The Constitution of the USA was designed by the Founders to work in both a spiritual and physical way. Spiritually it embodies the thoughts and feelings of those who founded this country and the moral values and beliefs they held. Physically, it sets out a framework for the mechanics of the people and the government dealing with each other and with the physical world in which we live.
The Founders purposely chose not to make the Constitution a religious document. They knew that the various religions were groups of people with somewhat differing specific sets of moral values and beliefs based on a concept of worship of some form of supernatural sentience, and that they expected their members to adhere to their specific beliefs. From experience the Founders also knew that some religious groups would try to force their own set of beliefs on other people through the vehicle of a national government which would persecute those with opposing beliefs. To prevent this from happening in America, the Founders specifically provided in the First Amendment to the Constitution that the government would not allow any religious group to use the government for religious purposes nor allow the government to abuse any religious group.
Over time, the Constitution has been amended to reflect further thinking resulting in changes in values and beliefs, two notable examples being the abolition of slavery and the extension to women of the right to vote. No serious attempt has ever been made to repeal the religious protections of the First Amendment, but many laws through the years have been enacted and then found to be unconstitutional violations of the Amendment. Use of government funds for "faith based initiatives" may be one of the next ones found to be in violation.
To say the Bush Republicans are spiritual and have moral values is meaningless, since all of us are spiritual and have moral values. The Bush people should instead be called religious, and to the extent their political agenda includes religious initiatives, it will have to comply with the First Amendment religion provisions. For example, to say government money should be given to a group that believes drug addicts can be helped by a program that includes beliefs and moral values on how to live should be no problem, but when the group is a religion as defined above and when the religious belief is a part of the help given, then it is actually a prohibited "religion involved initiative".
What about calling Democrats secular? Secular is a word that literally means physical as opposed to spiritual. But in the context of American political discussion it has traditionally meant non-religious, like our Constitution is. Secular does not mean without spiritual values, it just means without religious values included. The Constitution is spiritual but not religious - it is spiritual and secular. The Founders knew then and the Democrats know now that most people, including Democrats, are religious. But the Democrats, like the Founders and in contrast to the Bush Republicans, know the wisdom of keeping religion and government separate.
posted by Tom Blake | 6:11 PM
8 Comments:
Tom,
Well written. I especially like your distinction between "spiritual" and "religious". Recognizing this difference is important for understanding the concept of the separation of Church and State.
But I do think the motivation you ascribe to the founding fathers for the separation of Church and State is anachronistic. The idea that they did this to protect one religious group from imposing its beliefs on another sounds like today's concept of religious toleration.
By the 1790's when the Constitution was written there were so many different religious groups in the former colonies that separating religion from the state was the only choice they had or there would be no political union. Any writings of the time simply stated those political realities rather than provided a new moral concept. Religious pluralism was already there even within most of the colonies.
A second reason was that most of the founding fathers were personally unenthusiatic about religion. Except for John Adams, they were all products of the Enlightenment. They gave lip service at best to religion. Many of them were Deists who believed that an intelligent force controlled the universe, but not a personal deity.
We live in a much more religous time in this country today. I find it ironic and unhistorical when I hear and read that this country was founded on religious principles. Such nonsense.
John from Phoenix
Good points, John. Religious pluralism did exist in the colonies and many of the Founders present at the Constitutional Convention were in fact Enlightened Non-Personal Deists. I don't think the Convention had any discussions of religion and government and the subject did not come up until after the Convention when the proposed Constitution was being discussed by the public and by State politicians who were not present at the Convention.
As part of the process of obtaining ratification of the Constitution it was agreed that a batch of amendments to the original package would be put together to address what are essentially civil liberty concerns, that batch ultimately becoming the first ten amendments we know as the Bill of Rights. Religious scare tactics were among those used by opponents to ratification of the Constitution, including Patrick Henry, who argued that under the Constitution an established religion would be set up. Others said the absence of any religious test would open the country to Jews, Mohammedans and Pagans and that the Pope could be elected President [but only if he was born in the USA or was a US citizen at the time of ratification of the Constitution].
I think what I said about the attitudes and insights of the Founders (those at the Convention) is true, but I gave them credit for foresight on the First Amendment, when it was actually hindsight they exercised after the public response reminded them how many Unenlightened Personal Deists there were in the colonies.
Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were all Deists, practicing "Natural Religion". They believed God was to be found through reason rather than revelation, and that God created the world but was not involved in its workings, and thus heaven and hell were of the individual's own making.
At the time of the Constitunional Convention, several States had laws requiring any public office holder to swear an oath of allegiance to the State and also of some particular religious belief. For example, Pennsylvania required every state representative to swear he believed in God and to acknowledge that he believed the Old and New Testaments were divinely inspired.
In deciding what oath to require of public office holders, the Convention adopted the oath language still contained in Article VI of the US Constitution, providing for an oath to support the Constitution, "but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Tom,
I am responding to what is probably an old posting, but one I just came across. I am surprised to see you include John Adams in a list of Deists. Adams linage is through Puritan heritage. His father was a deacon in the church. (I'm not sure if it were still referred to as Puritan at this time or as Congregationalist.) His father wanted him to follow him in the ministry, but he was not so inclined and instead went into law. He became very successful at that, and he no doubt would have been a very successful minister, as the skills required for both professions are similar. I think he believed in a personal God, and he was devout all his life. His puritan streak was an embarrassment to Franklin when they were both envoys in France. Conversely, Adams barely could stand Franklin whom he perceived as an atheist and amoral. Franklin and Jefferson were Deists and also Hamilton. I think other fathers of our country were too, as that was the leaning of the intelligensia at the time. But I believe Adams was the exception that makes the rule.
John from Phoenix
John, you have done more reading on Adams than I have, but there does seem to be support for the conclusion Adams was a Deist. I based my posting on what was said in "Miracle at Philadelphia", by Catherine Drinker Bowen. I just did a little Google searching and there do seem to be sources saying Adams was a Deist, or at least a Unitarian. There seem to be many quotes of Adams consistent with such beliefs. Here is an interesting article on Adams from the Deism.org web site, including a contrast between his form of Deism and that of Jefferson.
Tom,
The article you referenced is very interesting and only confuses me more. The author's first paragraph seems to me to be self contradictory. But I just don't know enough about religion and history to say for sure. The author says in the first paragraph that Adam's Deism is different from Jefferson's. Then he says that Adams converted from Calvinism to Unitarianism. Is Unitarianism the same as Deism? I don't know. Maybe today but back then? I thought Unitarianism was simply a rejection of the Trinity doctrine, but I have never read anything about it, just knew a few Unitarians. Probably a rejection of the the Trinity is a rejection of Jesus' divinity. But that doesn't say whether Adams believed in a personal God or in a kind of intelligent life force that Jefferson believed. The author goes on to say in the first paragraph theat Adams rejected Calvinist predestination, that he believed God would save or damn an individual based on the life he or she led. That sounds like a personal God to me. The article seems to be stretching to prove some preconceived bias of the author. I have read that when his beloved daughter Nabby died he said that the love of God and His creation and my delight in my own existance are my religion. That does sound like Deism, but was it a only a reaction from a trrible personal loss? So I need to read more.
John from Phoenix
John, here is a Unitarian biography of Adams, from the Unitarian Universalist Historical Society. It sounds like they are claiming him as one of theirs. The article indicates unitarians don't believe in the trinity. Adams seems like a man who lived his life in accordance with a personal sense of right and wrong that did not need to be based on acceptance of any particular religious creed. I too would like to read more about him and Abigail.
Tom,
Excellent article! A very good short piece on Adams' life. I am not familiar with some of the religious references, but it would seem that Adams was a Unitarian, or at least shared many of their beliefs. But what are the unitarian beliefs, then and now? And, back to the original question, what has Unitarianism to do with Deism? More stuff to research.
John from Phoenix
Post a Comment
<< Home