I have mentioned that for the next month I will be participating in a National Endowment for the Humanities Seminar for teachers on the Separation of Church and State.  While our formal seminar begins at 9 this morning, yesterday we checked in, got our rooms, computer codes, linens and the like, met one another informally, had a brief reception and then dinner and then were on our own to get set for the morrow.

I thought in this article I would give a few observations on the early material we will be covering.  I will even offer one or two quotes from the material that I find very relevant in our current era, in a time when the Texas Republican party can officially call for the U.S. to be Christian nation, and when certain “religious” leaders want to override that very separation of Church and State.

I came to teaching about religion because I cannot conceive how you can fully grasp much of what has happened in history without understanding how and why religion has functioned as the motivating force it has been—in the case of Russia it was the Russian Orthodox Church which enable the people and the nation to sustain a common identity during the period of domination by the Mongols, and this is just one example I could cite. 

We are already addressing some documents from two Virginians among the Founding Fathers, Jefferson and Madison.  Jefferson is important as the author of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, one of two documents (the other being the Declaration) that he had listed as among his accomplishments on his tombstone (he does not list being president, but does list founding the University of Virginia).  Jefferson first drafted such a bill in 1777, and when he became governor two years later introduced it to the legislature.  it did not become law until 1786, when Jefferson had already been in Paris for a year, and was shepherded through the legislature by Madison, who as early as 1774 when he was 22 had written to a Princeton classmate at his displeasure at the attempt of the Anglican church to suppress all other forms of religion.  In 1776 the newly independent Commonwealth had moved to disestablish the Anglican church, but the issue was not fully resolved until after the signing of the Treaty of Paris of 1783 when independence was finally assured.  The debate was fierce, with Patrick Henry arguing for what he saw as a middle ground.  He introduced a measure for Establishing a Provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion that was debated in 1784 and 1785.  It was during this debate that Madison wrote his own Memorial and Remonstrance against Henry and his supporters.  Besides these two well-known documents, the statute and Madison’s argument, we are also looking at Article VI and Amendment I of the Constitution, Jefferson’s famous 1801 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (wherein we find the first use of the phrase wall of separation) and also a selection from Jefferson’sNotes on Virginia written in 1781-1782

Because I have to hurry to get dressed and prepared for our first session, I am only going to offer a few quotes from this early material.  I will concentrate on things you may not know, and/or that i think are particularly relevant to our time today.  I will offer them without comment, allowing you to draw such conclusions as you might think relevant.  I look forward to any discussion you may chose to make in the comments.

From Jefferson’s Notes on Virginia:

But our rulers can have no authority over such natural rights, only as we have submitted to them.  The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit.  We are answerable for them to our God.  The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.  But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God.  It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion.  The several sects perform the office of a censor morum over each other.  Is uniformity attainable?  Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.  What has been the effect of coercion?  To make one half the world fools, ahd the other half hypocrites.

It can never be too often repeated, that the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is while our rulers are honest, and ourselves united.  Form the conclusion of this war we shall be going down hill.  It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support.  They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded.  They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights.  The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will remain on us long, will be made heavier and havier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion.

From Madison:

The religion, then, of every man, must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate.  This right is in its nature, an unalienable right.. . It is the duty of every man to render the creator such homage, and such only, as he believes to be acceptable to him; this duty is precedent, both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims of civil society....  We maintain, therefore, that in matters of religion no man’s right is abridged by the institution of civil society; and that religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance.

Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects?  That the same authority can all for each citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of only one establishment, may force him to conform to any one establishment, in all cases whatsoever?

Because the proposed establishment is a departure from that generous policy which, offering an asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of every nation and religion, promised a lustre to our country, and an accession to the number of its citizens.

Torrent of blood have been spilt in the world in vain attempts of the secular arm to extinguish religious discord, by proscribing all differences in religious opinion.

Because, finally, “the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his religion, according to the dictates of conscience,” is held by the same tenure with all our other rights.  If we recur to its origin, it is equally the gift of nature; if we weigh its importance, it cannot be less dear to us; if we consult the “declaration of those rights which pertain to the good people of Virginia, as the basis and foundation of government,” it is enumerated with equal solemnity, or, rather, studied emphasis.

And finally, the concluding two paragraphs for the Virginia Statue of Religious Liberty as adopted in 1786:

II.  Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, or shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religon, and the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

III.  And though we will know that this assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purpose of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in laws; yet as we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall hereafter be passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operataion, such act will be an infringement of natural right.

[revised 07/01/06 - ED]