Been trying to do some reading lately on the history of religion in American politics and governance.  This desire led me to the book you see here, and can purchase here, if you really want to.

Moral Minority: Our Skeptical Founding Fathers, by Brooke Allen is a very left-leaning analysis of the thinking on religion by six of the founders - Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton.  The first six chapters of the book, one per founder, are devoted to examining the writings of these men as relates to religion in politics and governance.  The later half of the book is devoted to examining contemporary writings, from mostly the French Enlightenment, but also the English, that "undoubtedly" had great affect on the founders.  Let me put it to you this way, the first part is reasonable history, even if it indulges in a bit of what I was taught in seminary is "proof-texting" (deciding a point and searching for material to make it rather than letting the totality of the material decide the point) but the latter half is pure anti-religious diatribe.

Now having said that, there is a great deal of value in the book and I could discuss it a great length, but will try to make some salient points in a few bullets.

• The term "Christian Nation" is a hugely loaded one meaning different things to different people.  America is clearly not a "Christian Nation" in any sense that the nations of Europe were at the time of the founding.  That is to say, the government of those "Christian nations" obtained their legitimacy and authority from the church.  In the US, government clearly and wholly obtains those things from the people, with a diversity of religious persuasions.
• The idea of "separation" is deeply rooted in our national make-up.  The "separation of church and state" was meant in parallel with the separation of powers written into the Constitution.  The authority and power of the church was to be separate from that of the government - see bullet above.  That does not mean the church has no voice in the political process, only that it has no political power apart from what it gains in that process.
• The founders, some claiming Christianity, some not, were largely not Evangelicals in any sense that looks like an Evangelical would look today.  There really was no such thing then.  The roots of that movement indeed trace to the Second Great Awakening, around 1800, but it has modified greatly since that time.  The church has changed significantly in the ensuing years.
• Few analyses of these issues I have read take into account how much the church has changed.  In the earliest days of the nation, churches were large, monolithic organization with structures to unite and control congregations.  This enabled them to accumulate enormous power if they wished.  Such churches exist today, but they are largely on the wane.  Evangelicals tend to operate in individual congregations that may come together on a convention type basis, but lack the real control mechanisms of the old-line churches.  This means the political action of churches today is largely very different than it would have been then.
• Despite the founders' desire to limit the political power of the church, there was a widespread acceptance of a prevailing "ethos" throughout the nation.  There was further acknowledgement that this ethos was reflective of the basic Christian ethos, which is reflective of the Jewish ethos.  There was debate as to whether religion was necessary to maintain this ethos, but there was little debate about the nature and strictures of the ethos itself.  Some have called this a "civil religion" - that is to say a religoin largely devoid of theological, but not ethical, content while generally, but not universlly, acknowledging the supernatural in some ill-defined sense.

My point is that I think in some ways both sides of this discussion take things a bit too far.  On the far right there are some that would border on the dreaded "theocracy."  Governmental and eccesiastical authority are intended to be separate, the use of religious tests of various sorts, personally and publicly would be an example of bringing these two spheres too close.  Many on the far left seem to fear the combining of these spheres so deeply that they desire the eradication of religion from the public square, not simply its limitation.

Many of the founders doubted the necessity of religion to maintain the common ethos, and yet, history has, I think, proven the point - as religion has largely become the preserver and holder of that ethos when many in society are working to erase it.  (Something Pascal seems to have foretold.) The founders were, above all, men of observation, analysis, and conclusion.  I have little doubt that when confronted with many of the questions we find ourselves confronted with today they would have welcomed a religious voice or voices in the discussion - they did at the founding.

I think a minority religion candidate, provided it is a candidate that holds the prevailing ethos, provides a nice solution to this overarching political problem.  It takes the discussion off the authority of religion and places it on the questions of the ethos itself where it clearly belongs.  By all means we should allow our religions to increase our conviction about many issues, but we cannot rely on the authority of the religion when it comes to debating those issues in the public square.

Lowell adds:  Bravo to John for a fine and thought-provoking post.  For those interested in the Mormon perspective on these issues, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes God "established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom [He]raised up unto this very purpose."  In other words, Mormons believe the Constitution was divinely inspired, and that whether or not the Founders were perfect, or even Christian, they were acting as instruments in the hands of God. Also, an important official statement on Church members' political involvement is here.  It dates from 1978, but it's still on the Church web site, and it certainly reflects the teaching and culture I have experienced as a Church member. The oft-quoted official Church statement on political neutrality is here. 

I doubt that Evangelicals (or any other branch of creedal Christianity) have any problem with these views, which are central to the tradition out of which Mitt Romney comes.

Technorati Tags: religion, politics, governance, the Founders, books, reading, Mormons, Evangelicals, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Constitution, Mitt Romney, Pascal, separation of church and state

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Book Reviews, Issues, Understanding Religion | 1 Comment » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Recently:

• “Meeting the Challenges of Today:” Neal Maxwell, Secularism, and The Separation of Church and Politics
• Wednesday Quick Links
• Prop 8 - Problem or Solution?
• Legality, Religiousity, Post-Prop 8 Ugliness and the Case Against Huckabee
• Prop 8 and religion: A moral or political issue, or both?
• RED MEAT! Hewitt, Huckabee and Anti-Mormonism
• Say What?!
• In The Wake Of Prop 8
• A Catholic Defense of Mormon Support (and other religions’ support) for Prop 8
• Being The Target