The ferocious last gasps of the religion of Christian America

[Ken]

Nor did the First Amendment “strip the Christian religion” of anything; there had never been an established church in the United States to strip from it. Furthermore, some of the states had established churches that continued right on being established until at least 1834¹. This isn’t minor quibbling over language either; I understand one impetus for disestablishment was the Second Great Awakening (see, for example, here). And here’s where we find the evangelicals we started the article off with. It turns out the two end of the circle don’t line up so neatly after all.

To be fair, there wasn't actually a United States prior to 1776 or 1789, however you want to date it. What there was was a collection of British colonies that operated with various degrees of political and religious autonomy from England. After the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which resulted in the abdication of the Catholic monarch James II and the succession of the Protestant monarchs William III and Mary II, the Church of England reasserted the connection between church and crown. The colonies were not immune and there was considerable back and forth. American colonists participated in both the English Civil Wars in the 1640s and Glorious Revolution forty years later which were complicated struggles involving the powers of Parliament vs the monarch, and the authority of the church as well as which church (Catholic or Protestant).

The English political world at that time was very much a struggle between Catholicism and Protestantism on the European Continent and the British Isles. As well as a struggle to define the role of the Church of England over religious life in England, Scotland, Ireland, as well as the colonies. For example, Catholicism was outlawed in Maryland after the Glorious Revolution and Catholics were banned from public office. Despite the fact that Maryland had originally been founded as a Catholic colony.

The American Constitution and the First Amendment must be understood in that wider world political context in which the founders lived. It was their own history as well. The European struggles between between the powers of the crown and parliaments. And the roles of the Catholic and Protestant churches in pretty much every political war in Europe and the British Isles since at least the Reformation would have been at the forefront of their minds when drafting the American Constitution. They were not just forming a coalition or compromise government between the 13 colonies. They were also forming a government that stood as a counterpoint or contrast to those in Europe in which both the crown and the church were inextricably linked to the state, whether you are talking about England, France, Spain, or the Holy Roman Empire.

Put another way, European politics and wars at that time, and for the preceding centuries since the Reformation were struggles between representative parliaments and monarchs, between the church and state, and between Catholic and Protestant churches. The American Constitution resolved all of those struggles in favor of representative democracy and erased the roles of BOTH of the crown AND the church in the affairs of government.

That should probably read “established church of the United States”.

On British religion: Today is the anniversary of the beheading of Louis XVI in 1793. This morning I was reading (I can’t find it now) how this was a turning point in English Catholicism. The Catholic candidate for king had died some time before and things had cooled off between Catholics and Protestants. The bloody French Revolution and the persecution of Catholics there resulted in a wave of sympathy for them in England resulting in toleration of Catholics in England.

Sure. But my larger point was that the Constitutional provisions related to separation of church and state weren’t just drafted in the context of colonial affairs and history. The founders were acutely aware of English history and European history as well. It was their history too. And the entanglement of church and State is one of the main themes of English and European history going back to at least Constantine. They weren’t just seeking to define the role of Congregationalists or Baptists in government. They were seeking to avoid the historic English and European forms of government in which the institutional church and the crown were the two biggest forces and powers in public life.

[Judas Maccabeus]

To be fair, there wasn't actually a United States prior to 1776 or 1789, however you want to date it. What there was was a collection of British colonies that operated with various degrees of political and religious autonomy from England. After the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which resulted in the abdication of the Catholic monarch James II and the succession of the Protestant monarchs William III and Mary II, the Church of England reasserted the connection between church and crown. The colonies were not immune and there was considerable back and forth. American colonists participated in both the English Civil Wars in the 1640s and Glorious Revolution forty years later which were complicated struggles involving the powers of Parliament vs the monarch, and the authority of the church as well as which church (Catholic or Protestant).

The English political world at that time was very much a struggle between Catholicism and Protestantism on the European Continent and the British Isles. As well as a struggle to define the role of the Church of England over religious life in England, Scotland, Ireland, as well as the colonies. For example, Catholicism was outlawed in Maryland after the Glorious Revolution and Catholics were banned from public office. Despite the fact that Maryland had originally been founded as a Catholic colony.

The American Constitution and the First Amendment must be understood in that wider world political context in which the founders lived. It was their own history as well. The European struggles between between the powers of the crown and parliaments. And the roles of the Catholic and Protestant churches in pretty much every political war in Europe and the British Isles since at least the Reformation would have been at the forefront of their minds when drafting the American Constitution. They were not just forming a coalition or compromise government between the 13 colonies. They were also forming a government that stood as a counterpoint or contrast to those in Europe in which both the crown and the church were inextricably linked to the state, whether you are talking about England, France, Spain, or the Holy Roman Empire.

Put another way, European politics and wars at that time, and for the preceding centuries since the Reformation were struggles between representative parliaments and monarchs, between the church and state, and between Catholic and Protestant churches. The American Constitution resolved all of those struggles in favor of representative democracy and erased the roles of BOTH of the crown AND the church in the affairs of government.

That should probably read “established church of the United States”.

On British religion: Today is the anniversary of the beheading of Louis XVI in 1793. This morning I was reading (I can’t find it now) how this was a turning point in English Catholicism. The Catholic candidate for king had died some time before and things had cooled off between Catholics and Protestants. The bloody French Revolution and the persecution of Catholics there resulted in a wave of sympathy for them in England resulting in toleration of Catholics in England.

Sure. But my larger point was that the Constitutional provisions related to separation of church and state weren’t just drafted in the context of colonial affairs and history. The founders were acutely aware of English history and European history as well. It was their history too. And the entanglement of church and State is one of the main themes of English and European history going back to at least Constantine. They weren’t just seeking to define the role of Congregationalists or Baptists in government. They were seeking to avoid the historic English and European forms of government in which the institutional church and the crown were the two biggest forces and powers in public life.

As well as not being able to agree on what a "Church of the United States" would look like. Maybe they could get more agreement now.

Likely Thanksgiving, Memorial day, Veteran's day and Forth of July as its holidays, the "Star Spangled Banner" and "God Bless America" as its hymns. The Constitution as its scripture, and the Pledge of Allegiance as its profession of faith. Veterans as its saints, as they must stand and be recognized on certain holidays....

Sadly, I saw all of the above in my former evangelical church. I am glad it is gone, and glad I am in a better place.

For the record, it is called syncretism.

J.M.

[Ken]

That should probably read “established church of the United States”.

On British religion: Today is the anniversary of the beheading of Louis XVI in 1793. This morning I was reading (I can’t find it now) how this was a turning point in English Catholicism. The Catholic candidate for king had died some time before and things had cooled off between Catholics and Protestants. The bloody French Revolution and the persecution of Catholics there resulted in a wave of sympathy for them in England resulting in toleration of Catholics in England.

Sure. But my larger point was that the Constitutional provisions related to separation of church and state weren’t just drafted in the context of colonial affairs and history. The founders were acutely aware of English history and European history as well. It was their history too. And the entanglement of church and State is one of the main themes of English and European history going back to at least Constantine. They weren’t just seeking to define the role of Congregationalists or Baptists in government. They were seeking to avoid the historic English and European forms of government in which the institutional church and the crown were the two biggest forces and powers in public life.

As well as not being able to agree on what a "Church of the United States" would look like. Maybe they could get more agreement now.

Likely Thanksgiving, Memorial day, Veteran's day and Forth of July as its holidays, the "Star Spangled Banner" and "God Bless America" as its hymns. The Constitution as its scripture, and the Pledge of Allegiance as its profession of faith. Veterans as its saints, as they must stand and be recognized on certain holidays....

Sadly, I saw all of the above in my former evangelical church. I am glad it is gone, and glad I am in a better place.

For the record, it is called syncretism.

J.M.

But of course, none of that is actually the problem. Churches are free to worship whatever they want including the Constitution, flag, patriotic hymns, or veterans. None of that is problematic. You are free to make a church of the Constitution, or a church of the Army, or whatever. We even have churches in this country that worship guns.

What is problematic is when the opposite happens. When it is the government itself that mandates and enforces a particular religion, or advantages a particular religion, whatever it may be: Catholicism, Anglicanism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. I think that is what the framers were trying to avoid.

I do know that Anabaptists are a vanishingly small portion of the population, and any sort of official state Christianity will have no resemblance to Anabaptism. It would, in fact, be the antithesis of it.

[temporal1]

Ken:
I think that is what the framers were trying to avoid.

i think this is pretty much it. altho, i’m not convinced they were really thinking much about non-Christian gods. i’m not sure. they were sharp, and had great forethought. i’m just not convinced they were quite that “far-thinking.” after all, example: the awful Christian-Muslim wars were not so remote for them.

i’m just not sure they were that “global.” but i understand contemporary claims.

Christians vigorously fight other Christians.
The framers had their hands full trying to make room for that.

[Ken]

Ken:
I think that is what the framers were trying to avoid.

i think this is pretty much it. altho, i’m not convinced they were really thinking much about non-Christian gods. i’m not sure. they were sharp, and had great forethought. i’m just not convinced they were quite that “far-thinking.” after all, example: the awful Christian-Muslim wars were not so remote for them.

i’m just not sure they were that “global.” but i understand contemporary claims.

Christians vigorously fight other Christians.
The framers had their hands full trying to make room for that.

Yeah, I doubt they were really thinking about Islam, but probably were thinking about Judaism as Jews were present and active in this country from the time of the founding. Jews were active in the American Revolution, both as soldiers, and also as merchants and bankers and such in the larger cities in support of independence.

But I think the founders were really trying to avoid the entanglements of church and state that lead to all the devastating religious wars that swept across Europe in the 1600s and 1700s where you had Protestant armies and Protestant monarchs fighting Catholic armies and Catholic monarchs and such. Many of the immigrants to the colonies such as the Mennonites were fleeing those wars.

[temporal1]

.. But I think the founders were really trying to avoid the entanglements of church and state that lead to all the devastating religious wars that swept across Europe in the 1600s and 1700s where you had Protestant armies and Protestant monarchs fighting Catholic armies and Catholic monarchs and such. Many of the immigrants to the colonies such as the Mennonites were fleeing those wars.

Few who came wanted a state church. Most were fleeing, it was far away and a hard life, the monarchies wanted control, wanted profits, but they had other more local matters on their minds, too. Europe was civilized, the Colonies/the Americas were wild. The central wars were Christians versus Christians.

Native Americans had their own beliefs+gods, but many were converted, and conversion was probably presumed as their future. Many embraced Christianity.

i’m not sure atheists and humanists, agnostics, etc., were much on their minds.
All these others benefit from Christian principles of tolerance. We all do.

When the founders designed the new government, they wisely and frequently acknowledged God, but did not defer to any one Christian denomination. Jesus’ name was not used. But i think it’s safe to say the reference was to the Christian God. The effort was toward Christian principles.

Today’s more global interpretations are wildly popular, but (i will guess) probably fantastical.
i’m not convinced the founders/the early immigrants were quite there. (U.S. voters still had plenty of trouble with JFK’s Catholicism in the 1960’s.)

Life was hard, they were busy. A lot was about survival, not philosophy. Disease and death were ever present. No antibiotics or anesthesia until after the Civil War, i believe. It was rough. No indoor plumbing. Safe drinking water was not guaranteed. Whiskey was a staple with many uses. And abuses.

If families owned a book, it was likely the Bible. If you didn’t own a book, you knew about the Bible. The Bible was “central communications” for hundreds of years, following moveable type.
Many learned to read via the Bible.

For a long period, scriptures were included in school books for reading and writing practice, memory work, etc. Gov schools were often bilingual, German and English. i suppose WWI ended that. not sure.

The U.S. is still a very young experiment in government.

It’s all very interesting, to attempt to walk back in time. So much is forgotten.
i enjoy good reenactment films.

[barnhart]

If state churches were unwanted in the colonies, why were they so prevelent. As I recall the only standout in the constitutional convention without an official church was Rhode Island. I suspect the lack of one in the constitution is more due to the fact it was divisive than to deep commitment against it. There is very, very little about it in the constitution one way or another. If unbelievers like Jefferson had less influence post convention, the legal landscape could be quite different today.

[HondurasKeiser]

If state churches were unwanted in the colonies, why were they so prevelent. As I recall the only standout in the constitutional convention without an official church was Rhode Island. I suspect the lack of one in the constitution is more due to the fact it was divisive than to deep commitment against it. There is very, very little about it in the constitution one way or another. If unbelievers like Jefferson had less influence post convention, the legal landscape could be quite different today.

Perhaps we're overlooking their genuine belief in the merits and efficacies of a strong and robust federalism. The federal government was prohibited from imposing a national church because "Which Church, Whose Doctrine?" but the states (pre-14th amendment and subsequent court rulings) were free to do so because they were seen as closer to the people and their common and shared beliefs. Indeed it was seen as a good for the people of a certain region to elevate rather than level, certain beliefs over and against others. That's, I suppose, how we get the spectacle of James Madison sponsoring a 1786 bill in the Virginia Assembly to punish "Sabbath Breakers" and a few years later saying the following about the the doctrine of "Separation of Church & State":

The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.

I should be clear here and say that I am not necessarily convinced of their arguments or defending their positions. Just trying to poke around at their rationale and seeming inconsistencies.

[temporal1]

HK is always a treat. ^^

If state churches were unwanted in the colonies, why were they so prevelent. As I recall the only standout in the constitutional convention without an official church was Rhode Island. I suspect the lack of one in the constitution is more due to the fact it was divisive than to deep commitment against it. There is very, very little about it in the constitution one way or another. If unbelievers like Jefferson had less influence post convention, the legal landscape could be quite different today.

i’m sure you know more.
my posts on this are largely QUESTIONS+OPINIONS, based on some some scattered readings over my lifetime. your post includes, “If Jefferson” .. which reflects speculation. i find the topic interesting, whenever it comes up.

That is, in general, i enjoy TRYING to find hearts+motivations of real people in history, in context of what was happening and how they responded to it. i generally presume living peoples, put in real-life context of history would be no better than those in history, and maybe worse.

i believe strongly in this, because, in my life, humans have consistently proven to be human, without exception. humans DESIRE to be “better-than.” we work hard at it. results: still human.

The majority, or all, of the early folks in the Colonies (“Colony” is the operable word) arrived because of some relationship with kings (state churches). Kings (with state churches) were seeking profits. They were under kings/state church rule, even if they hated it.

Altho the early ones were under this rule, many left because they were persecuted in their homes. The relationship was not a loving one, either way. To some extent, both were agreed distance was the better option, but the kings demanded taxes, ownership, profits.

That’s what kings do, no matter on which continent they exist. No matter culture or skin color. Humans are human, no matter physical description or location.

Christianity IS divisive. Christians war hard against one another, this topic is based on it.

Most of my life i did not think a thing about deference to “God” being included in much of the founding of the U.S. Because of the STRONG effort of some to altogether remove all references to God from all place in government (and everywhere else they can manage) - i’ve thought about it often.

Deciding what the founders did with reference and deference to God - was genius. Possibly inspired.
Regardless of how they got there. “They” were not men “all of one mind.” They attempted to compose something wherein the majority could embrace and thrive.

Since, people from all over the world have risked life+limb for the opportunity to “get a piece of it.” Every group has struggled. Most have been treated very badly until they make their way. Many, after very rough starts, thrive and forget all about the hard times.

i enjoy reading some about Scandinavian history, wherein the Vikings took so many slaves, many from Ireland (the Irish have a lot of “being taken as slaves” in their history) - Vikings took “defenseless” Catholic monks as slaves (why wouldn’t they?!) Only to later be themselves overtaken - by Christianity! “The first shall be last” ..

isn’t that the core of Jesus’ message?? to overcome: submit.
Jesus’ inspired perfect genius. not human.

One more thing.
i don’t believe in atheists.
only people who have not yet walked far enough.

i’ve read, before she died, even Vashti McCollum softened, or reversed her views.

i believe there are many who worship self-as-god. this is not atheism. it’s idol worship.

History is interesting.
Trying to grasp it in context is probably impossible. But fascinating to try.

[temporal1]

If state churches were unwanted in the colonies, why were they so prevelent. As I recall the only standout in the constitutional convention without an official church was Rhode Island. I suspect the lack of one in the constitution is more due to the fact it was divisive than to deep commitment against it. There is very, very little about it in the constitution one way or another. If unbelievers like Jefferson had less influence post convention, the legal landscape could be quite different today.

Perhaps we're overlooking their genuine belief in the merits and efficacies of a strong and robust federalism. The federal government was prohibited from imposing a national church because "Which Church, Whose Doctrine?" but the states (pre-14th amendment and subsequent court rulings) were free to do so because they were seen as closer to the people and their common and shared beliefs. Indeed it was seen as a good for the people of a certain region to elevate rather than level, certain beliefs over and against others. That's, I suppose, how we get the spectacle of James Madison sponsoring a 1786 bill in the Virginia Assembly to punish "Sabbath Breakers" and a few years later saying the following about the the doctrine of "Separation of Church & State":

The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.

I should be clear here and say that I am not necessarily convinced of their arguments or defending their positions. Just trying to poke around at their rationale and seeming inconsistencies.

This is it.
If the living do not have empathy for those who struggled with real life on earth before, there can be no expectation for empathy for whatever the living today are struggling with. The living always want to believe they are better-than. A quirk of human nature.

It’s not that agreement is necessary. Simply humility to try to grasp in perspective, understanding, there is no certainty “we the living” would have done any better. And maybe not as well.

That’s the part that gets me. What if i would have done worse than they?