Ramblings

 

Allan C. Brownfeld

Allan C. Brownfeld is a syndicated columnist and associate editor of the Lincoln Review, a journal published by the Lincoln Institute of Research and Education, and editor of Issues, the quarterly journal of the American Council for Judaism.

What the Founding Fathers Thought about the Role of Religion in American Life

The place of religion in American life remains a contentious question. There are some who would like to exclude religion from the public square entirely, arguing that the Constitution established a “wall” between church and state. Others express the view that the Constitution mandated “neutrality” between the various religious groups, not between belief in God and atheism.

Whether the issue is school prayer, the display of Nativity scenes on public property, or the celebration of the Ten Commandments, the rhetoric has become increasingly heated while less and less attention has been paid to our history and to the intent of the framers of the Constitution.

It is instructive to review the historical record for guidance. No one need agree with the views held by the Founding Fathers, but neither should they be ignored or overlooked as we proceed with this debate.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence he appealed to God as the source of our liberty, not to man, the state, or any group of men. This is clear at the beginning of the document:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
 

On November 1, 1777 there was the first real Proclamation of Thanksgiving by Congress. George Washington, whose army was then at Valley Forge, referred to the Proclamation of the Continental Congress in his orderly book:

Tomorrow being the day set apart by the honorable Congress for Public Thanksgiving and praise, and duty calling us devoutly to express our grateful acknowledgements to God for our manifold blessings, the general directs that the army remain in its present quarters, and that the chaplains perform divine services with their several corps and brigades, and earnestly exhorts all officers and soldiers whose absence is not indispensably necessary to attend with reverence the solemnities of the day.

The Continental Congress issued four fast day proclamations prior to its first Thanksgiving. Of these perhaps the most significant was that issued July 12, 1775, for a fast day to represent all the colonies that were being molded into a nation. The Proclamation, signed “by order of Congress, John Hancock, President,” reads:

As the great Governor of the world, by his supreme and universal providence, not only conducts the course of nature with unerring wisdom and rectitude, but frequently influences the minds of men to serve the wise and gracious purposes of his providential government; and it being, at all times our indispensable duty devoutly to acknowledge his superintending providence, especially in times of impending danger and public calamity, to reverence and adore his immutable justice as well as to implore his merciful interposition for our deliverance; this Congress, therefore, considering the present critical, alarming, and calamitous state of these colonies, do earnestly recommend that, Thursday, the 20th of July next, be observed by the inhabitants of all the English colonies on this continent, as a day of public humiliation, fasting and prayer; that we may, with united hearts and voices, unfeignedly confess and deplore our many sins, and offer up our joint supplications to the allwise, omnipotent, and merciful Disposer of all events. . . . It is recommended to Christians of all denominations to assemble for public worship and to abstain from service labor and recreation on said day.

In the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1778 reference is made to the Deity:

And whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said articles of confederation and perpetual union.

 

The Northwest Ordinance, prepared from a draft originally written by Jefferson and adopted in 1787, is a landmark in many respects. Often forgotten is its reference to religion as “necessary to good government” echoing Jefferson’s grounding of our freedom in “the Creator.”

The relevant portion of the Ordinance is this:

. . . And for extending the fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty, which form the basis wherever these republics, their laws and constitutions are erected: to fix and establish those principles as the basis of all laws, constitutions and governments, which forever hereafter shall be found in said territory. . . . It is hereby ordained and declared . . .

Article 1. No person demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship, or religious sentiments in the said territory . . .

Article III. Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

Benjamin Franklin, considered one of the most skeptical of the Founders concerning religion, is reported by James Madison in his “Notes” to have made the following proposal on June 28, 1787 before the Continental Congress:

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth--that God governs in the affairs of men. . . . I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.

During the administration of Thomas Jefferson, who was president from 1801 to 1809, the capitol was used for religious services. These were generally held in the main hall of the old Senate wing, where both houses met prior to the completion of the House wing. It is said that the president himself frequently attended; that the Marine band played; and that there were clergymen from not only the Orthodox Protestant churches, but also from Quakers, Roman Catholics and Unitarians.

In 1796 George Washington pointed out the importance of religion as regards the state in his Federal Address. He said:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports.

And on January 27, 1793, he wrote to the New Church in Baltimore:

We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition, and that every person may here worship God according to the dictates of his own heart. In this enlightened Age and in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast that a man’s religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, or deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest offices that are known in the United States.

 

A divine service was part of Washington’s Inaugural ceremony in New York in 1789. The National Seal shows the eye of Providence on its reverse side—a pyramid representing the thirteen original colonies in the all-seeing eye of Jehovah is surrounded by a cloud of glory symbolizing the protecting Divine Providence.

There was, however, no unanimity even at that time as to what the role of government with regard to religion was to be.

In 1785, James Madison was among those who opposed the decision of a committee of Congress to recommend setting aside one section in each township in the western territories for the support of religion. He rejoiced when he heard a report that the plan would be abandoned, writing:

How a regulation so unjust in itself, so foreign to the authority of Congress, so hurtful to the sale of public land and smelling so strongly of an antiquated bigotry, could have received the countenance of a committee is truly a matter of astonishment.

 

Madison opposed paying chaplains, whether in Congress, or in the Army or Navy, not because of having services for these groups, but to their being conducted as a function of government and paid for by public funds. He wrote:

 

The establishment of the Chaplainship to Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights as well as Constitutional principles. . . . Why should the expense of religious worship for the Legislature be paid for by the public, more than that for the Executive or Judicial branches of government?

In a speech before the Virginia House of Delegates in October, 1784, Madison opposed the plan of a tax “for the support of the Christian religion.” The speech was reported this way:

He then showed, that, as the benefits of the proposed provisions were to be limited to the Christian societies and churches it would devolve upon the courts of law to determine what constitutes Christianity, and thus, amid the great diversity of creeds and sects to set up by their fiat a standard of orthodoxy on the one hand and of heresy on the other, which would be destructive of the rights of private conscience. Be argued, finally, that the proposition dishonored Christianity by resting it upon a basis of mercenary support, and concluded with vindicating its holy character from such a reproach, contending that its true and best support was in the principle of universal and perfect liberty established by the Bill of Rights, and which was alone in consonance with its own pure and elevated concepts.

History shows us that the Founders were strong believers in religious freedom and were almost without exception also strong supporters of religion. The sessions of the first democratic assembly held in America were in the little church at Jamestown in 1619. These sessions were opened with a prayer to God. The mottoes of many of the states indicate a belief in and reliance upon God. Among the mottoes is that of Arizona, which is “Ditat Deus,” meaning, God enriches. The motto of Colorado is “Nil Sine Numine,” which means “Nothing without God.” The motto of South Dakota is, “Under God the People Rule” and that of Florida is, “In God We Trust,” the same as our national motto.

In 1789 we were emerging from a situation in which each colony had an established church, or barring this had given several religious groups a preferred place and status. The era was one in which the very concept of religious freedom was a revolutionary one. For James Madison to propose the First Amendment was an important step forward. To say that he meant to place government in a “neutral” position--as against religion on the one hand and secularism or agnosticism on the other--is hardly borne out by the facts. The intention of Madison, George Mason and Jefferson seems to have been that government be neutral about endorsing any particular religion--but not about religion and a belief in God itself. 

James Madison states that,

. . . The good of society requires that the rules of conduct of its members should be certain and known, which would not be the case if any judge, disregarding the decisions of his predecessors, should vary the rule of law according to his individual interpretation of it.

What would the authors of the Constitution think of efforts to remove “under God” from the pledge of allegiance, or efforts to remove the Ten Commandments from the walls of courthouses, or the challenges to prayers at high school and college commencement ceremonies? Reviewing their words on the subject of religion and the state leaves little doubt that they would find such efforts curious indeed, and hardly consistent with their own views and values.

Perhaps we have traveled a long way in America from those days to these. Even if this is true, even if we seek no longer to be guided by the intent of those who wrote the Constitution, still it is of at least historical value to know and understand what the thinking was about church-state relations in Philadelphia in 1789, and in America during the era of its independence and infancy.

The evidence points to the fact that we are a religious nation. This remains true in the 21st century, even though the nature of the religions practiced may have changed. Madison, Jefferson, Mason, Webster, Adams and other Founders of the Republic and authors of the Constitution were devout men. Jefferson said that our rights come from “the Creator.” All believed religion and society went hand in hand and could not be separated. Each believed in religious freedom, but none believed in an absence of the atmosphere of belief in God from our public life. There is considerable evidence that the majority of Americans at the present time share this view.

What We Think We Know about Race—and What History Really Shows Us

There is a great deal of “conventional wisdom” about matters of race. Many of our public policies are based upon such convictions, including affirmative action, school busing and minority set-asides. The fact is, however, that such “wisdom” is wrong and, as a result, such programs have largely failed to achieve their goals.

In medicine, the most important element in designing a program to combat disease is to properly diagnose it. If the patient is suffering from cancer but is diagnosed with some other ailment, death is the likely outcome. The same is true with such social problems as a gap in academic achievement between the races, the breakdown of the family in the black community, and a disparity in crime and economic levels.

In a thoughtful new book, Black Rednecks and White Liberals and Other Cultural and Ethnic Issues (Encounter), Thomas Sowell, the distinguished black economist who has devoted much of his career to shattering myths about race, shows us how our current problems have been misdiagnosed and how the alleged “solutions” have, in fact, made matters far worse.

Dr. Sowell, a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, is the author of such previous books as Ethnic America, Basic Economics, A Conflict of Visions, and the Quest for Cosmic Justice. He declares that,

Race and rhetoric have gone together for so long that it is easy to forget that facts also matter--and these facts often contradict many widely held beliefs. Fantasies and fallacies about racial and ethnic issues have had a particularly painful and deadly history, so exposing some of them is more than an academic exercise. The history of intergroup strife has been written in blood in many countries around the world and across centuries of human history. The purpose of this book is to expose some of the more blatant misconceptions poisoning race relations in our time.

It has been repeatedly said that black Americans are today suffering from the effects of slavery and segregation, which can be held responsible for poor academic achievement, family breakdown, and other social ills. This, Sowell points out, is an “external” explanation for the current situation. What he prefers--and what the facts of history validate--is an “internal” explanation, in which the culture and values of the group involved play a larger role in determining their destiny than anything inflicted upon them by the larger society.

In the title essay, “Black Rednecks and White Liberals,” Sowell analyzes “redneck culture” with its emphasis on pride and violence, its disdain for education and hard work, its sexual promiscuity and alcoholism. This culture was once predominant among the white Southerners among whom blacks lived for centuries. It slowly permeated black society and what is now viewed as “ghetto” culture is a remnant of that counterproductive lifestyle.

The common white people of the South, Sowell writes,

. . . came from the northern borderlands of England---for centuries a no-man’s land between Scotland and England--as well as from the Scottish highlands and from Ulster County, Ireland. All these fringe areas were turbulent, if not lawless regions, where none of the contending forces was able to establish full control and create a stable order. . . . What the rednecks . . . brought with them across the ocean was a whole constellation of attitudes, values and behavior patterns that might have made sense in the world in which they had lived for centuries, but which would prove to be counterproductive in the world to which they were going--and counterproductive to the blacks who would live in their midst for centuries before emerging into freedom and migrating to the great urban centers of the U.S., taking with them similar values.

These cultural values and social patterns included an aversion to work, proneness to violence, neglect of education, sexual promiscuity, improvidence, drunkenness, lack of entrepreneurship, reckless searches for excitement, lively music and dance, and a style of religious oratory marked by strident rhetoric, unbridled emotions and flamboyant imagery.

What happened, Sowell points out, is that much of the cultural patterns of these Southern whites

. . . became the cultural heritage of Southern blacks, more so than survivals of African cultures, with which they had not been in contact for centuries. . . . Moreover, such cultural traits followed blacks out of the Southern countrysides and into the urban ghettos--North and South--where many settled. The very way of talking, later to be christened “black English,” closely followed dialects brought over from those parts of Britain from which many white southerners came, though these speech patterns died out in Britain while surviving in the American South. . . . From these same regions of England came such words as “ax” for ask, “dat” for that and “dis” for this. . . . Such usage remained common among black Americas. But no such words came from Africa. . . . The slaves’ custom of marking their marriages by jumping over a broomstick . . . was in fact a pagan custom in Europe in centuries past and survived for a time among Southern whites.

When it comes to education, Sowell argues that,

The neglect and disdain of education found among antebellum white Southerners has been echoed not only in low performance levels among ghetto blacks but perhaps most dramatically in a hostility toward those black students who are conscientious about their studies, who are accused of “acting white”--a charge that can bring anything from social ostracism to outright violence. So much attention has been paid to questions of ability that few have looked at cultural attitudes. One of those who has is black professor and best-selling author Shelby Steele, who “sees in many of these children almost a determination not to learn,” even though, once outside the school and in their own neighborhoods, “these same children learn everything.” He drew on his own experiences teaching at a university: “For some years, I have noticed that I can walk into any of my classes on the first day of the semester, identify the black students, and be sadly confident that on the last day of the semester a disproportionate number of them will be at the bottom of the class, far behind any number of white students of equal or lesser ability.

Statistical data substantiate these impressions, Black students typically perform academically below the level of those white students with the same mental test scores, in contrast to Asian American students, who perform better than white students with the same test scores as themselves. Sowell writes that,

Even though black students average lower test scores than either white or Asian American students, those test scores are not necessarily the sole, nor perhaps even the predominant, reason for lower black academic achievement. Indeed, it is possible that the lower test scores may be a result of cultural attitudes--and of actions or inactions over a period of years, based on those attitudes--more so than a cause of academic failures.

White liberals and intellectuals have done the black community great harm, in Sowell’s view, by subsidizing bad behavior and by legitimizing an anti-intellectual atmosphere by referring to it as “black culture.” He provides this assessment:

The welfare state has made it economically possible to avoid many of the painful consequences of this lifestyle that forced previous generations of blacks and whites to move away from the redneck culture and its values. Lax law enforcement has enabled the violent and criminal aspects of this culture to persist, and nonjudgmental intellectual trends have enabled it to escape moral condemnation. As far back as 1901, W. E. B. Du Bois, while complaining of racial discrimination against blacks, also condemned “indiscriminate charity” for its bad effects within the black community. In a later era, the burgeoning welfare state, especially since the 1960s, has spread an indiscriminate charity--in both money and attitudes--that has given black redneck culture a new lease on life. Intellectuals have been particularly prominent among those who have turned the black redneck culture into a sacrosanct symbol of racial identity. This includes both black and white intellectuals. . . . By projecting a vision of a world in which the problems of blacks are the consequences of the actions of whites, either immediately or in times past. White liberals have provided a blanket excuse for shortcomings and even crimes by blacks. The very possibility of any internal cultural sources of the problems of blacks have been banished from consideration by the fashionable phrase “blaming the victim.” But no one can be blamed for being born into a culture that evolved in centuries past, even though moving beyond such a culture may do more for future advancement than blaming others or seeking special dispensations.

Sadly, Sowell shows,

Blaming others for anything in which blacks lag has become standard operating procedure among white liberals. If blacks do not pass bar exams or medical board tests as often as whites or Asians, that shows something is wrong with those tests. . . . Best-selling author Andrew Hacker, for example, says that academic problems in general are created for black students in white colleges because such colleges use curricula that “are white in logic and learning, in their conception of scholarly knowledge and demeanor.” Why this does not seem to be a problem for Asian students remains unexplained, even though blacks have lived in this white society for centuries longer than either Asian Americans or contemporary immigrants from Asia. Why it is not a problem for blacks from the Caribbean is another unexplained contradiction of such white liberal excuses for American-born blacks.

This liberal mindset has led to a situation in which

. . . the thuggish gutter words and brutal hoodlum lifestyle of “gangsta rap” musicians are not merely condoned but glorified by many white intellectuals--and “understood” by others lacking the courage to take responsibility for siding with savagery. The National Council of Teachers urged the use of hip hop in urban classrooms. . . . The general orientation of white liberals has been one of “what can we do for them?” What blacks can do for themselves has been of lesser interest, much of what blacks have in fact done for themselves has been overshadowed by liberal attempts to get them special dispensations--whether affirmative action, reparations for slavery, or other race-based benefits--even when the net effect of these dispensations has been much less than the effects of blacks’ own self-advancement.

When it comes to slavery, Sowell shows that, although it is usually discussed in racial terms today, the practice was a pervasive institution throughout history. At least a million Europeans were enslaved by North African pirates alone from 1500 to 1800, and some European slaves were still being sold on the auction block in Egypt years after the Emancipation Proclamation freed blacks in the U.S. During the Middle Ages, slavs were so widely used as slaves in both Europe and the Islamic world that the very word “slave” derived from the word for Slav--not only in English, but also in other European languages as well as in Arabic. Nor have Asians or Polynesians been exempt from either being enslaved or enslaving others. China in centuries past has been described as “one of the largest and most comprehensive markets for the exchange of human beings in the world,” Slavery was also common in India, where it has been estimated that there were more slaves than in the entire Western hemisphere. Before the modern era, by and large, Europeans enslaved other Europeans, Asians enslaved other Asians, Africans enslaved other Africans.

Often, the economic lags and social pathology of American blacks have been blamed on a “legacy of slavery.” Sowell finds this less than persuasive:

Whether it is the dearth of marriages and families among contemporary blacks or their lower labor force participation than whites, or their high crime rates, slavery has often been invoked as an explanation. Yet the fact is that in the late 19th century, when blacks were just one generation out of slavery, there was nothing like today’s levels of unwed births or failure to participate in the labor force. It has been from the 1960s onward that these social pathologies have escalated. Whatever the cause, it has arisen long after slavery had ended . . . the more fundamental question as regards the “legacy of slavery” argument is why black marriage rates began a precipitous decline in 1960--nearly a century after the end of slavery.

To see how groups can move from poverty to prosperity it is instructive to look around the world and observe the success stories. Implicit in such stories is hard work, strong families, and a respect for education. Sowell reports that,

Immigrants from Asia to various countries around the world have been prominent among groups that have risen from poverty to prosperity, often in the face of racial discrimination. . . . Still less does the success of Asian immigrants support the view that protests and politics are key requirements for raising lagging groups out of poverty. Any reasonably informed American, for example, can far more easily name five prominent black Americans than can name even one prominent Chinese American or Japanese American leader. The fact that the Chinese have long prospered outside of China, and Indians outside of India, undermines the multicultural view that Western prosperity in general is not due to any superior features of Western institutions.

“External” explanations of black-white differences--discrimination and slavery, for example--seem to many to be more amenable to public policy than “internal” explanations, such as the values and culture of the black community itself. If one assigns “external” causes to the problems of the black community, Sowell declares, “no painful internal changes in the black population” will be required and all the changes will be

. . . left to whites, who are seen as needing to be harangued, threatened, or otherwise forced to change. . . . The liberal vision of blacks’ fate as being wholly in the hands of whites is a debilitating message for those blacks who take it seriously, however convenient it may be for those who are receptive to an alibi.

Where a particular group culture is itself a handicap impeding the acquisition of the education, skills and experience required for economic and other advancement, Sowell concludes,

. . . group solidarity can have huge and lifelong consequences with staggering costs. . . . Group solidarity may not only seal the group off from the larger surrounding society, it may seal them off from the truth about the internal causes of their own problems, making a solution more remote.

This important book is the capstone of decades of outstanding research and writing on racial and cultural issues by Thomas Sowell. It is essential reading for those who would genuinely understand the racial problems faced by the American society and are interested in finding a genuine path toward resolving them. It is an optimistic book that emphasizes the importance of culture over “race” in addressing black-white differences and should be welcomed by all who want to understand the real challenges we face, not the illusory ones which a narrow ideological approach has set forth.     *

“Public affairs go on pretty much as usual: perpetual chicanery and rather more personal abuse than there used to be . . .” John Adams