I think he was talking about national declarations of days of fast, prayer, and thanksgiving. What he seems to be saying is, “Declaring days like that is the privilege of the Executive if there is a national religion, but in a country like ours, that should be left up to the heads of the various sects and denominations.” He struck that section from his final letter, probably because it was an implied criticism of Washington and Adams (who did declare national days of prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving), which wouldn’t help the Dem-Reps. in Federalist New England.
Polycarp, while I am not a Constitutional scholar, I have always taken the 9th’s purpose to be one of allowing states to come up with their own rights, that supplement the Bill of Rights. Many states, I believe, have a right to education and other things explicitly spelled out. The 9th protects those rights, otherwise, it could be conceivable that someone might challenge them under the argument that because they aren’t in the Bill of Rights, they don’t exist. However, I have never taken it to mean that everything not explicitly forbidden in the Constitution is a right, as some people do.
I recall that during Robert Bork’s confirmation hearings, he was asked the meaning of the 9th Amendment. His response was that to today’s Constitutional scholars, it means nothing at all! I didn’t hear anyone argue with this point.
Neurotik, the Constitution is one of delegated powers. The States retain the right to do anything not explicitly forbidden in the Constitution (or, of course, their own constitutions). They no more need the Ninth Amendment to pass rights than they need the U.S. Secretary of Transportation’s OK to prohibit parking on the last block of Elm Street. And if that weren’t clear from the text, the Tenth Amendment spells it out.
The writings and speeches of Madison, Randolph, and others make it very clear that the point to the Ninth Amendment is that there are other rights, determinable by courts in specific cases involving them, than those explicitly protected in Amendments I-VIII, and that the Founding Fathers realized that such a specification was necessary to keep people from thinking that no other rights were guaranteed.
This is a far cry from “mean[ing] that everything not explicitly forbidden in the Constitution is a right…”
Some examples of Ninth Amendment rights from Supreme Court cases: You have the right to marry the spouse of your choice, to beget/bear children or to use contraceptives to refrain from doing so, and to travel from place to place. All of these are things most citizens would consider as “my right” (albeit good Catholics and a few others might feel contraceptives were morally wrong) but not a one is found anywhere in Amendments I-VIII.
So what exactly is wrong with “imposing a strict secular culture on all the activities of the US government”? Secular means “worldly rather than spiritual” or “not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body”. The purposes of government in the United States are secular.
The United States government is instituted by men, deriving its powers from the consent of the governed, for the purpose of securing their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; somewhat more specifically, it exists in order to form a national union, to establish justice in the relations between human beings and to insure domestic law and order, to provide for the common defense of the people of the United States from invasion or attack, and to promote their general welfare; still more specifically it has such purposes as the regulation of interstate and international commerce, the establishment of a national medium of economic exchange, the delivery of the mail, the promotion of science and invention by protecting intellectual property rights, etc.
Government in the United States does not exist to save men’s souls, to bring them into right relation with God, or to bring about their spiritual awakening, although certainly one of the reasons government exists is to protect the right of people to peacefully pursue spiritual awakening or a relationship with God if they believe in those things and choose to peacefully pursue them, and to protect the right of people to argue with each other about those things and to seek to persuade each other of the rightness of their views.
MEBuckner
I’m going to use some of the things you stated:
[hijack]
I’ll assume you mean “men” in the “mankind” sense to include women too, as opposed to the use of the term by the Founding Fathers
[hijack]
Yes, a government of men. Which includes men and their spirituality and religion. The government of the United States was never meant to totally remove religion from the men who serve their country. Prayers before Meetings of Congress, In God We Trust, God Bless the United States, etc. are all examples of this belief.
The basis for these rights necesarrily involves a discussion of moral judgments. Ask some and they are rights given by nature, but ask others and they are endowed by the Creator.
Again we are dealing with concepts (justice, welfare) that many Founding Fathers thought, as well as I do, that are closely tied to spiritual beliefs and moral authority. When writing and debating the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, many were concerned about what role religion would have. The compromise reached, and incorporated into the First Amendment, was one that **Tennessee Ben[/b} described, proscribing the “establishment” of religion, not it’s complete removal from the government. Most interpretation of the phrase deals with whether or not a government’s specific action “establishes” a religion.
MEBuckner,
Hamlet pretty much got at what I had in mind. The problem with imposing a strict secular culture is that doing so necessarily defines religion as something to be done in private, never publicly. Such a requirement, when imposed upon public officials, would be in direct conflict with the free exercise clause. Our public officials no more give up their free exercise rights upon assuming office than they give up the right to free speech or assembly. Inalienable rights, you know.
It’s not a question of removing religion from the men (and women) who serve their country, but of removing religion from the functions of government. Although the functions of government may certainly be carried out by religious people, religion is not a function of government in this country.
Congressmen and Congresswomen may pray, but Congress itself should not pray. (That it does so and has done so is one of those regrettable inconsistencies which Madison urged should not be made into a precedent.)
The religious views–along with lots of other things–of citizens, including voters and elected officials, will influence how they believe the secular functions of government should best be carried out, but that doesn’t mean that the government should cross the line into performing religious functions.
Nonsense. America is not a totalitarian regime. That something is not done by the state does not mean that it must be done strictly in private. Americans are free to publicly meet and profess their faith in public houses of worship, to publicly publish, print, broadcast, and post their religious views, and to go out in public and seek to convert others to their religious views. All of that is protected by the law. But Americans are not free to do those things governmentally, using the powers and resources of the state.
Again, nonsense. Public officials are not only free to exercise their religion in the privacy of their own homes, they are free to do so publicly, in public churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, and meeting halls. But the exercise of their religion is not part of their official duties as civil magistrates. Public officials should no more usurp the capitols, courthouses, and city halls for the free exercise of their religion than they should usurp the public treasury for the exercise of their right to own property.
Sorry, Hamlet, but you pushed one of my “hot-buttons” and I have to call you on this:
[/quote]
Yes, a government of men. Which includes men and their spirituality and religion. The government of the United States was never meant to totally remove religion from the men who serve their country. Prayers before Meetings of Congress, In God We Trust, God Bless the United States, etc. are all examples of this belief.
[/quote]
“In God We Trust” on money and “under God” in the Pledge are both late additions. They were both added in 1956. Amazing,
considering how the American government had been acting so rationally in the mid 50s… coughHUACcough
I agree with the first half of the quote. People in government are human beings with spiritual beliefs (and lack of belief) of
all sorts. These beliefs will determine their decisions and actions. I think this is natural. I also have no problem with
supporting individual belief that is different than mine, such as Congressional chaplins and tax-exempt status for religious
organizations. The problem I have is when a specific religious beliefs (and I’m calling monotheism specific) are
determined to be part of national policy. That is a hijack of our country - I know that’s a loaded word right now, but
I can’t think of any word that better sums my feeling on it.
Personally, I do have a problem with the Congressional chaplains. Why should all taxpayers–Hindus, Wiccans, Muslims, Jews, Unitarians, Deists, Buddhists, Sikhs, and atheists–pay the salary of Christian–usually Protestant–clergyman? And why should all members of Congress be assumed to be Christian, or even theists? Congress doesn’t need a chaplain. Congressmen don’t serve on board nuclear submarines or on isolated bases in foreign countries or in foxholes on a battlefield. They haven’t been separated from the normal amenities of life in the service of their country, and the nature of their service doesn’t in any way hinder them from the normal exercise of their freedom of religion, in the same way that any other citizen exercises his or her freedom of religion. There are plenty of houses of worship in Washington, D.C., and the surrounding territory, and I daresay there isn’t a single Congressional district in the country without a church in it. Congressional chaplains are simply one of those things they’ve gotten away with for a long time, and now no one can stop it because they’ve been getting away with it for so long.
Nymaz
You’re not calling me on anything, so don’t worry :). We actually agree, in that I also don’t think there should ever be a specific religious belief espoused by the government. I just don’t see In God We Trust and Congressional chaplains as actually “establishing” a religion.
MEBuckner
I don’t want to hijack this, but is it your feeling that the military can and should have a chaplain? I really don’t want to put words in your mouth, it’s just the examples you gave regarding the Congressional chaplain seemed to indicate it. If so, shouldn’t the military then be required to also have a rabbi, Imam, shaman, and any other spiritual leader you can think of (in which case you end up pissing off all the atheists)? If so, I think we may end up in the same place as Nymaz pointed out, where if the United States government shows no preference for any specific belief, then it isn’t considered “establishment”
Nevertheless, the US government did have various religious functions from the beginning, such as prayers in Congress.
I find this argument quite logical, but it hasn’t worked in the real world. E.g., Nazi Germany specificially disavowed Christianity. Lenin and Stalin had no religion in their government. OTOH, the US, England, etc., who had a more-or-less Christian base, wound up with excellent civil liberties.
Actually, the U.S. armed forces do have rabbis, imams, and probably shamans (as well as Protestant ministers and Catholic priests) serving as chaplains.
Personally, if I were in charge, the issue of military chaplains would be handled rather differently from the way it is now. As it currently stands, military chaplains are commissioned officers of the United States armed forces, from a variety of different religious backgrounds, with salaries paid for by the government. They are assigned pretty much to any and all military units.
To begin with, I don’t think every military post needs any sort of official chaplainship program. Many armed forces personnel on active duty in the U.S. don’t even live on-base, and even those who do live on-base aren’t necessarily confined to the base at all times. There is no need for military bases in the U.S. to have on-base chapels or chaplains when the personnel at the base are free to go off base on Sunday (or Saturday, or Friday) and worship in the surrounding community.
This would probably also apply to U.S. bases overseas in civilized countries. There are plenty of churches in Britain or Germany. Even in civilized non-Christian countries like Japan, Christians (although a minority) are free to erect houses of worship, and I’m sure there are plenty of missionary groups of various denominations who would be happy to set up chapels adjacent to U.S. bases in Japan.
There are places like Saudi Arabia where American troops are stationed which are backwards when it comes to religious freedom. Bases in countries like that would have to be treated like ships at sea; the same would go for units in combat in hostile territory.
To consider the classic example of when some sort of accomodation should be made, I do think some kind of accomodation is reasonable for sailors on board ships (and for other service members in analogous situations). What I would do would be to allow non-military chaplains on board; their salaries, if any, would be paid by their parent denominations. To be really strict about it, the Navy (or other service) could charge the denomination, at cost, for room and board. I know non-military people are sometimes allowed aboard operational military vessels–I’ve seen documentaries filmed aboard nuclear submarines. I’m sure that those journalists had to sign agreements that they would respect military secrecy, and that there were rules which would have gotten them in Big Trouble if they had interfered with the working of the ship or disrupted the command authority of the captain and the officers in the chain of command. Non-military chaplains would be subject to similar rules. Even so, I rather suspect that the military would not be happy with having chaplains who were not military officers, but frankly that should be all the more reason for religious people to advocate doing things this way–imagine a Catholic priest hearing the confession of a sailor who occasionally has homoerotic thoughts. As a godless heathen, I might say the efficiency of our military forces outweighs any concern over superstitious relics like the confessional (except that I think the military’s policies on gays are stupid–but suppose the sailor confessed doubts about the mission he’s on–a sudden outbreak of religiously-motivated pacificism, for example), but a religious believer would presumably want to insulate ordained clergymen from the possible conflicts of interest of being simultaneously a commissioned officer of the armed forces of the state.
The multiplicity of denominations would have to be accomodated however it’s accomodated now. An aircraft carrier with a crew of 5,000 might be able to accomodate chaplains of several denominations (I don’t know if they do so now, but it would not surprise me); a nuclear submarine with a crew of 150 could not. I suppose some sort of lottery might be used for the allocation of chaplains in that case, although of course it would make little sense to insist on placing a Sikh chaplain on board a ship which had no Sikhs in the crew, and the majority of whose crew was Protestant. (Note that under the existing system chaplains are still ordained by specific denominations–see this U.S. Navy Chaplains FAQ page–so my system wouldn’t create any problems that don’t already exist on this point.)
One other potential problem is that giving up direct military control over chaplains might allow them to be less ecumenical–see, for example, the controversy over a Protestant U.S. Navy chaplain who was ousted (he claims) because of his evangelical (and anti-Catholic) religious teachings. However, if SOCAS doesn’t protect the right of clergymen to proclaim their faith–even if their faith is that adherents of certain other religions are going to hell–then what does it protect? (A non-military chaplain who was actually disrupting the military operations of the unit he was with could still be kicked out if things got really out of hand.)
Although the military has come a long way from its old “Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish” policy–see this Washington Post article on Wiccans in the military–I very much doubt that anything like what I would like to see will come to pass anytime soon.
december: Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. There are also plenty of examples of Christian establishmentarianism leading to tyranny and cruelty–often of one set of Christians oppressing another; Christian societies have become more free and more enlightened as their governments have become more secular and as they have guaranteed religious liberty for all.
B.F. Skinner did a cool little experiment that demonstrated Coincidental Correlation (post hoc ergo propter hoc). He set up a food pellet dispenser to dispense food at random intervals. He put a pigeon in a box with said dispenser.
After a while, the pigeon trained itself to perform unnatural acts like hopping on one leg and tucking its head under its wing in the hopes of getting a treat, because by coincidence, a pellet had been dispensed the last couple of times it had done that.
This is what Skinner called superstition. I think of this experiment every time I hear someone resort to Coincidental Correlation.
When ought we to believe something? I suppose Dryga_Yes is talking epistemology here. A peruasal of the Search function turned up this interesting thread
this link: http://www.sunnetworks.net/~ggarman/church.html
has some of the best info available on this subject.
However, this sort of thing goes back to the country’s roots. E.g.
http://legislation.cwfa.org/thx_wash.shtml
A Happy Thanksgiving to all!
So does slavery. We’ve made some missteps as our country has grown and developed. This includes some abortive attempts at
compulsive religiousity, such as the “blue laws” still on the books in certain locals. But all-in-all, we’re heading in the right
direction, in which all can practice their own beliefs or non-beliefs, free of fetters or compulsion.
As to the Ft. Hood Wiccan controversy, I was actually proud of the U.S. military in this case. When Sen. Bar started throwing
a hissy fit about gasp actually allowing non-Xtians to practice their religion, the regional military chaplin told him to piss off,
saying (and I’m paraphrasing here) “when I signed up with the military, I swore to uphold the constitution and that
includes the freedom of religion”
However, this sort of thing goes back to the country’s roots. E.g.
And it was controversial then. This site from the U. of Virginia has some arguments against the issuing of the proclamation that were made at the time, including that it was a mimicking of European customs, that the president didn’t have the right to tell people that they should be thankful, and that the law Congress passed telling the president to designate a day of thanksgiving was unconstitutional because it was meddling in religious matters.
http://www.virginia.edu/gwpapers/thanksgiving/index.html