Скачать презентацию religion and Politics Dr Troy Gibson I
433733825f185272c11e4773bbed43e1.ppt
- Количество слайдов: 108
Скачать презентацию religion and Politics Dr Troy Gibson I
Скачать презентацию religion and Politics Dr Troy Gibson I
religion and Politics Dr. Troy Gibson
I. A. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Course Introduction Why study religion and politics? Relevance to Political History (Western Civilization) Relevance to American History Relevance to Political Philosophy Relevance to Political Debate Relevance to Political Outcomes (parties, policy, voting, elections, groups, etc. ) *We may argue that religion ought not be relevant, but only a fool would say that it is not relevant. B. How will we study R&P? Where do we limit the study? Course will focus mostly on orthodox Protestant tradition, some on Roman Catholicism, and others will receive modest attention. Basis for this limitation: (1) Time constraints (2) Relevance/Influence in U. S. Political History (3) Size/Growth (4) Clarity of perspectives (5) Personal Knowledge
II. Religious Tradition in America A. Puritans 1. Definition: group of former Protestants immigrants who came to America fleeing religious repression in Europe. 2. Puritan theology (17 th-18 th centuries) – stresses the sovereignty of God over the affairs of man (Calvinism) and Covenant theology (the choice of God select or “elect” a people unto Himself and give them His favor in exchange for their obedience to the terms of the covenant or agreement. In practice, Puritans stress Holy living and a purified society. 3. Puritan legacy – Originally believed that America was the “New Israel” or “promise land” or a “city upon a hill” where God’s covenant people would thrive. They have left America with an enduring legacy, though some of their thinking is now considered extreme or outdated (theocratic tendencies, witch-hunting). They not only gave us or contributed to our stress on the importance of religion in society for sake of morality, but also limited government (no divine right), selfgovernment (autonomy of church gov’t), and attitude that America is a special place with a special God-ordained mission in this the world.
B. Pluralism – though Puritans dominated early on, religious diversity has been a mark of American society from the start. Dissidents of all kinds left Europe for the New World (Puritans, Baptists, Anglicans, Quakers, Jews) and new groups developed rapidly (Methodists). 1. Aided by diversity among colonies and Great Awakening (mid-18 th). Let to no establishment of religion in the Constitution (relatively novel idea). By early 19 th century, no state established an official church either. 2. Pluralism has been respected more for Christian diversity than for groups perceived as non-Christian by Protestants (Mormons, Catholics, Jews, Atheists). C. Populism has always been the fuel of religious success in America (bottom-up rather than top-down; evangelizing the lower classes)
III. Religious Groupings based on affiliation surveys 1. Evangelical Protestants (26. 3%) – trace their heritage to the Protestant Reformation; stress the absolute, reliable, and sufficient authority of the Bible in all matters of faith; distinguishing doctrines (5 solas; sola scriptura; sola fide; sola gratia; sola deo gloria; sola christus); typically stress the exclusive truth of Christianity and need for conversion. E. g. Southern Baptists, Presbyterian Church of America, Assemblies of God. 2. Mainline Protestants (16) – same heritage, but have departed from the traditional doctrines (especially sola scriptura) from the Reformation in light of modernity and scientific theories Darwin (indeed, no unifying system of doctrine). E. g. United Methodists, PCUSA, United Church of Christ. Less likely to accept a literal Hell or need for conversion. More likely to stress social justice. 3. Roman Catholics (17. 5) – considers itself to be the original and one true church of Christ through apostolic succession from Peter and the apostles. Distinguishing doctrines: Supremacy, necessity, and infallibility of the church, headed by the Pope or Bishop of Rome in all matters of faith.
4. Latino Catholics (4. 5) – most latinos have remained Catholic 5. Latino Protestants (2. 8) – growth, however, has come from the charasmatic movement 6. Black Protestant (9. 6) 7. Other Christian Faiths (2. 7) 8. Jewish (1. 9) 9. Other faiths (2. 7) Muslims (. 02) 10 Unaffiliated (16) Secular (7. 5) – free from” religion” and stress belief in the powers of human reason over faith in the discovery of truth (secular humanism). Atheist, Agnostic (3. 2) – considers the evidence for God’s existence to be unpersuasive (they may then disbelieve or leave it at that). Unaffiliated Believers (5. 3) *Comments (80% Christian, 55% Protestant, 22% RC, 84% affiliated, 90 -5% theistic) IV. Key Concepts:
A. What is religion – “A religion is an integrated system of beliefs, lifestyles, ritual activities, and institutions by which people give meaning to or find meaning in their lives by orienting themselves to what they take to be holy, sacred, or of ultimate value. ” But, can we properly define religion by looking at what is common among religions? Is that not circular? Does this not require that we know what religion is BEFORE we define it? “Suppose the problem were to find the common element in all snarks in order to form a definition of snark in general. The empirical method would require an examination of snarks; but this examination could proceed only if it were first known what a snark was… That is, the empirical examination can take place only after the definition is accepted. ” - Gordon Clark
How encompassing is this definition? Does it exclude purely individualistic religions with no institutions? Does it require belief in a god? What about animism? Does it exclude atheism or secularism? What if we replaced and with or? In a word, Religion is a worldview, or a comprehensive system of beliefs pertaining to matters of existence and being, ethics and morality, knowledge and truth. B. What is politics? Political Scientists have used various emphases when defining politics. Some stress the workings of government; some stress human relationships involving power; others stress the allocation of values. For us, politics is the authoritative allocation of values in a society (values = beliefs about what is “best” or “right”). The fact that people have different values causes political conflict with varying degrees of intensity. However, sometimes even agreement among values does not eliminate political conflict. 1. People may agree on a value, but disagree over how to achieve it. 2. People may agree on a value, but not its relative weight (priority).
In order to avoid extreme political conflict (civil war or civil unrest), when values are allocated, the allocating body (government) must be considered legitimate and some degree of cooperation is necessary. C. Other Terms (see handout): V. Poles of Religion and Politics Relationship A. Theocracy – gov’t by divine rule, though mediated through human rulers who receive direct guidance from God (boundaries of religion and government power are the same). Example: OT Israel and modern day Vatican City. B. Government Suppression of Religion – political state is totalitarian; claims total dominion over its subjects; state basically becomes the object of religious worship and actively fights against any other religious competitor. Example: Soviet Russia and Stalin and Maoist China 1966 C. In the U. S. , one of the views expressed on page 13 (Corbett) has been advocated (all of which represent an approach in between these two poles). 1. Dominance – let the state basically dominate (influence) the church or let the church basically dominate the state, though they remain distinct jurisdictionally. 2. Establishment – arrangement in which civil gov’t supports R.
Prescriptive – residents MUST support the favored religion (taxation, church attendance, etc. ) Permissive – allows for the dominance of a particular religion, by allowing its holy days and festivals to be acknowledged formally (celebrated in public schools, for example). May be either tolerant or intolerant of other faiths (e. g. , one receives tax support while others, whether free to operate or not, do not). May be exclusive, dual, or multiple establishments May be general or specific – Religion vs one denomination. Christianity or only Anglican, for example 3. Separation – church activities and state activities having nothing whatever to do with one another.
christian theories of religion and Politics I. Key Concepts in Redemptive History (study of God’s interaction with humans in time) A. Creation-Fall-Redemption – God created all things “good; ” Fall distorted things; redemption makes right distorted things. B. Questions germane to politics: How severe was the Fall? Did it distort only man’s moral status or everything else? If only man’s moral nature, redemption only affects man’s spiritual life (no distinct Christian approach to “non-religious matters”). If everything, redemption is total (politics too; no secular/sacred distinction). Also, is redemption completed in this life/time? Is redemption merely restoration (back to creation) or does it go beyond that (e. g. , monasticism)? Approaches that stress Creation over Fall often limit scope of redemption to man’s spiritual condition, applies nowhere else. Those that stress the Fall over Creation often consider everything in creation to be inherently evil and practically worthless. Those with a more balanced view consider the structures of creation (man’s reason, art, social structures) as still “good” and valuable but the direction men took those structures are fallen and need redeeming. II. Key Concepts in Eschatology (study of end times) A. The Kingdom of Christ – extends to every sector in which the total and complete rule of Christ is established. Questions concerning it: Is it present or is it future? Is it purely spiritual or also earthly/physical (Christendom). B. The Millennium - period of time (literal or not) in which Christ and His church reigns (literal or not).
Revelation 20: 1 -6 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while. Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.
1. 2. 3. Amillennialism (no future millennium): The view that the millennium of Revelation 20 is fulfilled in the present institutional church or in the deceased saints reigning with Christ in heaven. It specifically denies any global millennium. Kingdom is more or less spiritual, with only indirect effects in the physical world. Any physical manifestations of the Kingdom of Christ during this time are coincidental via the impact of the gospel. Premillennialism: The view that Christ's Second Advent will occur before the earthly millennium of Revelation 20, and will, in fact, institute that millennium (or the physical rule of Christ’s church in the world). This is the idea that Christ will reign on the earth with His church physically for a long period, probably a thousand years, sometime in the future. Postmillennialism: The view that Christ's Second Advent will occur after the earthly millennium of Revelation 20. Most postmillennialists believe that the kingdom of God advances in history slowly, almost imperceptibly, but that there will be a Godly Golden Age as prophesized in the Old Testament prophets before Christ returns.
C. What does this have to do with politics? The Millennium may be: 1. Physical and Present - If the millennium and reign of Christ is said to be physical and presently manifesting itself, then it makes more sense for the church to work in or engage the political process in order to usher in the Kingdom of Christ because that Kingdom will extend to both church and state prior to the Second Coming. 2. Physical but Future - If the millennium is physical, but entirely future (after the Second Coming), then there is less incentive to engage the political process, at least not tenaciously or distinctly, because the Kingdom will be limited to the church (not state/world) until the Second Coming. 3. Spiritual only and Present or Future - If the millennium is only spiritual, then the church at no point in time has the incentive or instruction to look to the political process as a means of ushering in the Kingdom of Christ. Indeed, the state can never be identified with the Kingdom of Christ in any sense if this is the nature of the millennium. II. Theologies of Religious Disengagement
A. Augustinian-Lutheran: “By two cities I mean two societies…one…predestined to reign with God from all eternity, the other doomed to undergo eternal punishment with the devil (Book XV, Chapter 1). – St. Augustine & Luther spoke of Two Kingdoms (City of Man & City of God). One passes away; the other is eternal. Christians are dual citizens, but owe their ultimate allegiance to Jesus. These two kingdoms should carry on with no overlap, minding their own business. State promotes justice, peace, and order. The church concerns itself with the edification of believers and spread of the gospel. State should not take steps to see God’s Law (Decalogue), much less God’s Word, explicitly imposed as such on its subjects. For saints only. In city of man, all people share common goals and knowledge in politics as earthly citizens because God’s natural law, which all men possess, tells them enough about what is right/wrong and wise to solve collective problems (no need for special revelation here – Bible – to tell them). That is, Christians are to appeal to God’s natural revelation in politics and God’s special revelation in church. The church has no distinctive political worldview. Christians, like non -Christians, will disagree on how to best carry out civil justice/common good. As long as there is justice, peace, and order, the church is to be indifferent to politics.
![“[State and church] have different purposes (salvation of sinners versus the restraint of the](https://present5.com/presentation/433733825f185272c11e4773bbed43e1/image-16.jpg "“[State and church] have different purposes (salvation of sinners versus the restraint of the")
“[State and church] have different purposes (salvation of sinners versus the restraint of the harm caused by sin), different constituencies (all the redeemed across time and space versus all the created within certain geographic borders), different authorities (special revelation versus reason/natural revelation), and different means (the supernatural tools of preaching and the Sacraments versus the natural means of the sword and the purse-strings). Application: Consider it a huge mistake to identify the work/mission of the church with the work/mission of a political party. Which millennial/kingdom view is closest? _________ B. Anabaptists and Radical Reformers – basically teach that we are not dual citizens, but truly only citizens of God’s kingdom. Strict separation between church and state and even between believer and state (some go so far as to require nonvoting, but also they are pacifists, against oaths, and often against holding public office). Very suspicious of state and think of it as inherently evil. The Christian is to refrain from resistance under any circumstance (even persecution). All human institutions are evil. Today, some Baptists, Mennonites, and Amish embrace these views.
B. Fundamentalists, a term that became associated with theologically conservative Protestants who reacted to Darwinian evolution and Higher Criticism of the Bible in the early 20 th century, taught that the way to deal with an increasingly secular society/state is to be removed from it (if it was secular, it was evil) or at least become more introverted. This view was applied to government involvement as well. Fairly short-lived (Neo. Evangelicals). C. Humanism – though not a religion in the popular sense of the term, secular humanism calls for strict separation of formal religious institutions and the state. They also call for taxing church property (they consider this exemption favoritism). Also believe that religious motivations ought not influence policy outcomes. D. Jewish - though it may appear this group would favor the reestablishment of the OT theocracy (Israel), Jews virtually all champion strict political neutrality concerning religion and the state (probably due to history of persecution). Only strict neutrality, as difficult as it may be institutionally and individually, is the only goal that protects the rights of all (p. 20 -21 Corbett).
III. Theologies of Religious Engagement Neo-Calvinists, Pluriformity, Sphere Sovereignty – accept the Two Kingdom view of Luther, but argue that there really is no common ground between believers and unbelievers (dismiss natural revelation; embrace presuppositionalism) in the public sector. People of all faiths and no faith should be free as religious individuals and institutions to influence society and gov’t as their worldview sees fit (no favoritism of any religion, including secularism). The proper implementation of a truly Biblical society is one where all institutional spheres of creation (family, school, church, state, etc. ) are limited in authority and answer directly to God with the goal of restoring those institutions back to their created order/function prior to Adam’s fall; the state’s purpose is to restrain evil, do good by promoting public justice which involves making sure that these institutions do not intrude upon each other’s turf. Cultural mandate is to “subdue the earth. ” So, state can punish criminals, but not deny them communion; employer can fire an employee, but not spank them; Boys Club can keep girls out, but not from the voting booth, and state must be even-handed between all religious people/organizations, etc. Sovereign only in their God-given spheres of authority.
Reconstructionists – these groups basically argue that the proper government is one which grounds all civil law in Biblical law & endorses Christianity (with varying degrees of toleration for other religions). They teach that the Kingdom of Christ has a direct physical manifestation not only in the lives of believers but in society/politics as well. They are postmillennial; disagree with the Two (distinct) Kingdoms until Christ’s return view. Not necessarily calling for a theocracy, but for a state that seeks to honor and promote the God of Christianity. Called Reconstructionists because they often believe that this was the original intention of the colonialists (Puritans and Pilgrims seeking to reconstruct OT Israel in the New World). Argue that a secular state will inevitably replace Christ as savior (no neutrality). Also believe that the Bible calls for free-market capitalism.
Neo-Evangelicals – parted ways with fundamentalists (1950 s) in theological approach (refused to ignore Bible critics, for example, but rather to engage them at the highest levels of theological, scientific, and philosophical discourse). Whereas fundamentalism responded to cultural modernity (secularism, science, theological liberalism, etc. ) by withdrawing from culture, Neos argued that Christianity calls for direct engagement without accommodation. Christians must not surrender any front, including politics, to seculars and theological liberals (neglects duty and results in societal disintegration). But, no specific political theory, however. Far more tempered, contemplative, and theological in approach to politics than current “Christian-Right. ” A few common threads: n Stress need for explicit recognition of divine law (God) as the only adequate ground for civil law (e. g. , human rights) n Explicit support for those policies specifically prescribed to government in scripture (laws protecting human life, property, religious freedom; those punishing criminals), but respect diversity of views for all others (not all sin should be criminalized).
Liberation Theology - explores the relationship between Christian, especially Roman Catholic, theology and political activism, particularly in areas of social justice, poverty and human rights. The main methodological innovation of liberation theology is to do theology (i. e. speak of God) from the viewpoint of the economically poor and oppressed of the human community. According to Jon Sobrino, S. J. , the poor are a privileged channel of God's grace. According to Phillip Berryman, liberation theology is "an interpretation of Christian faith through the poor's suffering, their struggle and hope, and a critique of society and the Catholic faith and Christianity through the eyes of the poor". Liberation theology focuses on Jesus Christ as not merely as Savior but as Liberator of the Oppressed. Emphasis is placed on parts of the Bible where Jesus' mission is described in terms of liberation and as a bringer of justice (Matthew 26: 51 -52). This is interpreted as a call to arms to carry out this mission of justice -- literally by some. A number of liberation theologians, though not all, also add certain Marxist concepts.
Roman Catholic view – Initially, the Roman Catholic church condemned the Revolutionary sentiment running through Reformation thinking. The Church criticized constitutionalism and democracy as producing an unnatural and godless society (preferred absolute hierarchy in church and society). But this view was basically altered in the late 19 th and especially after Vatican II (1962 -1965). The church then more or less embraced liberal democracy and the doctrine of subsidiarity. Subsidiarity – coined by Pope Pius XI, states in his Rerum Novarum (1931) that wherever possible, duties should be fulfilled by the lowest conceivable element in the social hierarchy (God at the top, then church, state, mediating structures); only in the case of failure is a higher authority (state) authorized to step in. In practice, this has meant an opposition to totalitarian regimes and support for social justice. Social Justice in Catholicism – Life is sacred; appreciation for differences and inequalities among men. Develop notion of Solidarity, which stresses that humans are inevitably interrelated; this warrants social action on behalf of others. Good gov’t acknowledges these principles, and intervenes to promote them when subordinate institutions fail to do so adequately (backs out when they do).
Distinction between Sphere Sovereignty (Neo-Calvinists) and Subsidiarity. They agree that the human will is not ultimate either individually or corporately (God’s will is), but they disagree on whethere is an ultimate source of sovereignty delegated by God in the earth (i. e. , a mediating sovereign) from which other sovereignties (families, individuals, church, etc) get their authority. For the RCC, the ultimate earthly authority is the church in spiritual matters and the state in non-spiritual matters. The decision guide for the church is revelation (Bible, Tradition, and Pope); for the state it is reason. Erastian-Anglican; Episcopalian: English Anglicanism historically viewed the church as a _______ of the state (seemingly opposite of RC). Church is under authority of King (Anglican) or Parliament (Erastian). State dictates what is permissible in religious matters. American Episcopalians have traditionally upheld this model in church gov’t, but not state gov’t. England eventually followed this lead, at least in practice. Christian Right? Activism appears to be almost completely reactionary, not stemming from a careful theological/philosophical ground (no theology of the state). Ready, Shoot, Aim! An exercise in “status politics”? (Lost dominant status in society and reacting to new “threats” like a wounded or cornered lion (merely lashing out? )
religion, Political theory, constitutional and liberal democracy I. Genevan Reformation or Scottish Enlightenment: What’s the Debate? A. Scottish Enlightenment and Contractarianism (mid-17 th century to late 18 th) – Theory says that modern constitutionalism and liberal democracy were basically products of progressive Enlightenment and Humanist thinkers (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu). Rousseau - “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains [social; not political]. ” We are encumbered by moral/civic/social ties we have not chosen. Reaction to religious wars follow Reformation (Which church to establish? ); goal = secular basis political order; humans were basically good if left to their natural state of disconnected individual autonomy; capable of self-government; government originates among men as a social contract in order to protect/liberate us from bonds of those who would violate our “natural rights” of life, liberty, property and individual autonomy; gov’t power must be limited and divided to prevent tyranny; did not stress need for religion in society (sometimes quite hostile to it, especially when Enlightenment thought united with Humanism which developed soon thereafter and deified human happiness, wisdom, ability, etc. ). Individuality is prior to social arrangements in state of nature. People freely and autonomously consent to a social contract (unlike other social institutions).
The contract is the only social bond that allows individuals to retain their autonomy (their terms/conditions). Result: Liberation! Foreshadow: American political thought has usually embraced the “atomistic” view of society (basic unit is the autonomous individual rather than groups or structures; contrast with subsidiarity and sphere sovereignty). “Through the contracts that he makes with his fellow, each individual is the author of his every obligation” - Pierre Manent. Key point: Civil society is based not on moral ideals derived from religion, but strictly from natural, biological instinct of self-preservation. Compare briefly to Christian social theory: Creation? Dependence in Trinity/Eden vs Independence in State of Nature Fall? Adam’s sin and consequent distortion of creation vs “chains” of civilization (family, church, workplace, marriage) Redemption? Lordship of Christ (Restoration) vs State via Contract among Men (back to autonomy) “Each citizen would then be completely independent of all his fellow men, and absolutely dependent on the state. ” Rousseau B. Genevan Reformation – Theory that liberal and constitutional democracy originated from the Scriptures and in the minds of Christian, especially Protestant Calvinist-Reformation era, thinkers. “After religious despotism is overthrown, civil despotism cannot long continue. ” - Boettner
II. Theology of the State as It Evolved in Church History: A. Constantine – converted in 312; first Roman Emperor to explicitly profess Christian faith; 313 toleration for Christianity is first act; gave $/land back to persecuted Christians; public aid to Roman Church; decreed civil actions to follow church discipline; confused leadership of church and state; church changed from disestablished to established; Non-believers? ; required church membership but debate surrounding degree of ruthlessness. B. Augustine – Viewed gov’t as neither inherently evil or good; saw fall of Roman Empire as instance of God’s providence “bringing princes to naught and reducing rulers to nothing” especially when gov’t pursues power instead of its only legitimate function, justice (Rom. 13). Gov’t is necessary evil; traced not to created order of God, but is a gracious consequence of the Fall. C. Aquinas - Duties of a king: promote common good; promote piety and virtue and prohibit impiety and vice so far as he can. Idea was shared b all through Reformation (except Anabaptists). No discussion of political freedom or rights here. Promoting common good may and can result in violating human rights. D. Medieval Christian political theology – more or less went the route of Aquinas. Membership in the church and membership in the state were considered synonymous (baptized into both).
Commentary: Though the notion of inherent human rights and freedom which is the foundation of liberal democracy was present prior to the Reformation, primarily in religious theology, its introduction in political theology did not emerge until afterwards. Augustine came the closest. III. Enlightenment and Reformation: Reactions to Christendom A. First generation reformers and limited government (Luther and Calvin) – stressed the sovereignty of God in salvation, the church, and then the state (over against Rome). Anti-Absolutism (whether Pope or King). Tenants of Calvin’s political thought: Only God has sovereign rights; The Fall justifies gov’t existence; Authority of rulers over other men is always bound by what God permits in revelation. In short, Calvinism “built a dam across the absolutistic stream, not by appealing to popular force (Enlightenment), nor to the hallucination of human greatness (Humanism), but by deducing those rights and liberties of social life from the same source from which the high authority of government flows – even the absolute sovereignty of God. ” – Abraham Kuyper. B. Second generation reformers on Freedom, Resistance to Tyrants, Covenantalism (Bucer, Beza, Buchanan, Mornay, Althusias, Rutherford, Puritans in general):
1. Beza (1574) and Mornay (1579) – No king is above The King. Beza: When obedience to the king (state) offends the King of kings, people (or lower magistrates) have right, duty, to resist; Mornay: people as a whole are above the king because they are the first covenant partners with God (radical for this time); a kings relationship to people is covenantal and people have right to depose the king when terms of covenant are violated by king; advocated a “federalistic-democratic” idea; when law of God (one or both tables of the Decalogue) are violated by king, people/magistrates may resist. 2. George Buchanan (1579 book) – argued for the preeminence of law (nation of laws , not men). “It is much safer to trust liberties to laws than to kings…confine them to narrow bounds, and thrust them, as it were, into cells of law…circumscribe [them] within a close prison…The law then is paramount to the king, and serves to direct and moderate his passions and actions. ” 3. Johannes Althusius (1557 -1638) – has been identified as the most important Political Scientist of the Reformation period. His work Politica argued explicitly for a federal political system, which he argued first appears in the OT covenants with Jews. He argued that societies were divided in to various divinely created spheres (church, family, nations, provinces, cities, professional associations). Government is simply a confederation of these smaller social units and may not interfere with the authority of these.
The civil law is toothless/shaky without a transcendent ground. The 10 commandments provides that ground and serves a basis for civility and order in society (p. 206 Hall). He applied both tables to the state, which meant that the state had a duty to protect society against false doctrine/religion (i. e. , 1 st table as civil law; consistent with others to this point; discuss options here!). Advocated the creation of a council of “Ephors” (independent supervisors) who reviewed the work of the civil authorities. They would be chosen by consent of the people as public/constitutional custodians (trustees). They can depose the king by supermajority vote. “The supreme magistrate exercises as much authority as had been explicitly conceded to him by the associated members or bodies of the realm. And what has not been given to him must be considered to have been left under the control of the people or universal association. Such is the nature of the contractual mandate…Absolute power…cannot be given to the supreme magistrate. ”
3. Rutherford, Puritans and Covenantalism and Liberty of Conscience In Lex Rex (1644, means Law is King), Rutherford set forth the most challenging work yet regarding the absolute power of the King. He reasoned that the king’s power is derived from the people whose authority is derived from God. The king, then, rules always and only conditionally (legal/constitutional conditions set forth by people and God). Further, Parliament is superior to king (very controversial for time). He argued that the people’s law is above the king, and the people cannot sign over their liberty/sovereignty to any king. No king is king by nature, but by law/vote. The Puritans, comprised of many separatists or noncomformists, began to argue that people had the right to worship the true God according to the “dictates of their conscience” without interference from the state. The most respected Puritan Confession of faith stated this explicitly. It asserted that in matters of doctrine and discipline, the state is not to interfere with church; state should refrain from violating freedom of religious expression for individuals subject to Christ and His Word (Westminster CF 23 and 30). Not always perfectly honored by Puritans when in power (e. g. , New World).
III. Summary: Reformers of both generations articulated a political philosophy based upon Scripture which denied the absolute authority of the state (or people); considered rulers and subjects as equally valuable (same as in church); placed the people and law above the king, generally called for a federal-democratic, divided, political system; called for a constitution which mirrored Biblical covenants where divine law (perhaps 10 commandments) serves as a transcendent ground of civil law; acknowledged right of people to resist and depose a king who violates the terms of covenant; we do not form government based on self-interest or ideals that we ourselves determine. Note on church government – the most common forms of church government (decision making structure) among the Reformers was congregational (democratic) or presbyterian (federal-republican). Clearly, many reformers came to believe that their view of how church gov’t should be structured came to influence how civil government should be structured (“Presbytery agreeth with monarchy like God with the devil”)
Covenantalism: The Puritans viewed a covenant as a social and divine promise: each participant in the covenant is expected to do certain things. A violation of the covenant could have the most disastrous consequences for those who had entered therein. Following biblical precedents, a covenant would also last from generation to generation. By means of these covenants, Puritans were among the first English speaking people to implement a government bound by written words in a single document. Comparing Covenants and Contracts: Covenants use Broad instead of Narrow language (no loopholes) Covenants are solemn sacred promises instead of cold legal words on paper Covenants are social/communitarian in nature instead of individual (We instead of I) Covenants identify a collective purpose and identity Covenants are validated or sealed in the presence of and by an external higher authority, typically God
Reformation Political Thought Political Sovereignty rests with God people state Ground of Natural Human value/rights = Imago Deo (originates with God) Justification for Gov’t = ordained by God at least to suppress evil (original sin), promote common good including proliferation of true religion (more communitarian) Constitution = morallyinformed pact between people having independent/equal status based upon voluntary consent and established by promises made before God. Implications – Reformation political thought led more to republicanism, with divine law and God as supreme (Glorious Revolution, English Civil War) Enlightenment Political Thought People State NHR ground = State of Nature, mutual and unanimous consent, virtue of being human (originates with humans)* Why gov’t? Self-interest, protect natural rights (life, liberty, property); return individuals to natural state of autonomy; more individualistic Constitution is a legal contract among people to form gov’t for sake of self-interest, limited gov’t, and binds all (posterity and immigrants) Implications - Enlightenment thought led more to democracy, with human law and the majority as supreme (French Revolution) *Today’s liberal theorists like Rawls attempt to ground freedom in something other than natural rights/law (too religious) and appeal only to what is rational.
Points of agreement: l Need for government l People come before (in time) gov’t, so gov’t rests upon people. l Humans have inherent worth/dignity/value/rights (separate question: Why? ) l Civil rulers must be checked legally/constitutionally (divided government, federalism, etc. ) and by elections l No divine right of kings IV. Development of liberal democracy (including freedom of worship). Product of Christian political thought? Where did freedom come from? A. Some critics of liberal democracy contend that it produces immoral people and a secular, even anti-religious, state. Confusion for many American Christians (hate it here, want to spread it abroad). B. Liberal theorists (e. g. , John Rawls) have argued that liberal democracy is exclusively a product of the Enlightenment and is and was built on non-religious grounds. C. Nicholas Wolterstorff argues that both are wrong because both falsely attribute liberal democracy merely to Enlightenment. Instead, he contends that liberal democracy is rooted in Christian thought: salvific equality, freedom of worship/conscience, functional separation of church and state.
Argues that tolerance for religious freedom and pluralism was granted not because of a desire for a secular state, but because the cost (lives and dollars) of enforcing religious compliance was too great and ultimately self-destructive. So, they arrived at: do what you can for common good and to make me good (Aquinas), but do not violate their human dignity/worth/rights (life, liberty property). Departure from Aquinas. Political theology had caught up with Christian religious theology all based on the Imago Deo concept often expressed as Natural Rights (also Augustine’s Two Kingdom distinction). Man = “just a little lower than the angels” in terms of worth. Read Locke quote next slide. Argues further that the Bible calls for Christian liberal democracy which allows for religious pluralism and freedom but honoring God-given human rights, where all religious perspectives/people are welcome in the public square (Dutch Calvinistic political theory) for debate and voting (unlike Rawls).
“The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our's. Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another. ” – John Locke
Religion and the American Founding I. Puritanism in Colonial America A. “To express and pursue the Protestant Reformation” in America. 1. Earliest Puritan immigrants (e. g. , Massachusetts Bay Colony; Plymouth’s Pilgrims) left Europe primarily to escape persecution and worship, as a group, according to their religious convictions but also to expand the Kingdom of Christ. They brought with them, the Genevan Study Bible and Genevan Calvinism. 2. Key figure: Cotton Mather (1663 -1729), churchmen, first historian, and political leader, argued that the consensus in New England was that the mission of colonization was to establish a “Christian Commonwealth” just as Calvin had done in Geneva. B. How? 1. Establish colonies based upon divine covenant, which limited government, specified individual freedoms as found in the OT where all other laws were grounded. Colonial Charters (p. 317 Hall; Mayflower Compact). These Charters, based primarily on covenant theology (read Lutz comparing church/gov’t covenant), contained many innovative constitutional ideas (trial by jury of peers, governor’s “council, ” declaration of rights, elementary voting for all males, etc. ).
2. Establish Reformed institutions of Higher Education which mirrored Calvin’s Academy in Geneva. John Harvard said the purpose of Harvard was to teach students to “know God and Jesus Christ. ” Harvard was described as an “incubator of Puritanism. Development common theological base - When the Westminster Assembly drafted its confession of faith in England (1647), virtually all Puritans in NE (churches, governments, colleges) adopted it as well. Indeed, Mather’s historical accounts of New England describes the WCF “as the faith of NE. ” C. Who? Two important immigration waves 1. Congregationalists first (1600 s; originally connected to Anglican Church, but who sought local church autonomy). Pushed gov’t by covenant. 2. Scots-Irish Presbyterians second (1700 -1776). Came to escape Anglican persecution and imposition in the UK. This group eventually became the only Christian group to unanimously and enthusiastically embrace the American Revolution. Why? It was in Scotland where Reformation thought was strongest (Buchanan and John Knox); where Presbyterian political theology (i. e. , ”two-power” theory) strongly endorsed and resulted armed resistance against British Crown; where the WCF was officially adopted. Pushed resistance to British rule.
3. 22% of congregations in 1776 were Congregational; 17% were Presbyterian; most of the rest were some other kind of Reformed church with only 2% Catholic and 2% Methodist. So, 2/3 s were tied to the Genevan Reformation (though many Anglicans were reformed in theology). II. American Revolution – Two religious motivations A. First, support for the American Revolution came from “the school of Calvin” and Reformed ministers, especially resistance and republican oriented Presbyterians. 1. Blamed in England: Read from Seabrook’s Presbyterian Rebellion. Why? 2. Ecclesiastical fight: saw the AR as another chapter in the Scottish-Presbyterian and Puritan war against Anglicanism (church ruled by King) and Erastianism (church ruled by Parliament) as well as revenge for Huguenot persecution in France (800 k French Protestants massacred); Political fight: republican in church government – republican in civil government. Basically, AR was seen as a continuation of the Reformation.
3. Presbyterian Princeton the “seminary of sedition” - More than any other institution, Princeton became a breeding-ground for Reformation theology in general (until mid 20 th century) and reformation political theology (advocating resistance against tyrants) in particular. 9 of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention graduate from there and 87 of 243 founding fathers. John Witherspoon (1723 -1794) president of Princeton in 1768 (Jonathan Edwards had also been president a decade before) had personally instructed many of the most radical revolutionaries (including James Madison - “If men were angels”). Arguably the most read and popular preacher at this time. Witherspoon’s students: 6 in CC; 12 governors; 30 judges; 21 senators; 39 HR. “Cousin America has run off with a Presbyterian parson” – Horace Warpole (Prime Minister in Parliament). 4. More than half of all soldiers/officers in AR were Presbyterians. 5. The denomination was the only institution in America organized and propagating republicanism (read from Seabrook). Prior to the Continental Congress, the General Synod of the Presbyterian Church was the only body representing the 13 colonies united the country before there was a congress. B. Baptizing Enlightenment Thought – many of the founding fathers derived their some of their motivation for rebellion from ET
Jefferson and Thomas Paine can hardly be described as even religious, much less Christian or Reformed. The ET’s secularized view of natural rights (freedom, life, property) & self-government and antiauthoritarianism and establishment tone were sufficiently persuasive to many of the younger less-religious founders. But even among the orthodox Protestants, the great stress on individual rights and liberty and self-evident truths found in ET and Humanist theory was rapidly being adapted to fit Protestantism in America to produce a new individualized distinctly American brand of orthodox Protestantism, which is dominant to this day. How? III. Religious Revivalism: Populism and Rationalism in America (Embracing of Dualism in Protestant America) A. Protestantism in 1776 – Emergence of Populists and Rationalists 1. Populists: 1 st Great Awakening occurred amidst dying churches. The GA revivals erupt in the 1740 s; downplay religious importance of doctrine, intellectualism, and community; stressed individual conversion, experience, and holiness regardless of denomination. Indeed, revivalist preachers urged hearers to leave churches where the awakenings were criticized as too emotional & irrational. Salvation was not thought to be a process connected to church life, but a personal encounter with God outside of church. Appealed to common folk and helped to grow the Baptists, newly formed Methodists and other denominations that stressed an individualized populist simple faith and opposed “elitism” of established churches.
Indeed, the Methodists, founded primarily by John Wesley, popularized for the first time Arminianism, which would soon overtake nearly all Protestants within a 100 years or so. Growth in adherence did not take place among the established churches, but among the “upstart” groups (Baptists and Methodists). Note: What does this brand sound like in the Enlightenment Thought? An atomistic voluntaristic view of ecclesiology mirrors that of secular political philosophy. The covenantal view, remember, conceived of society as communal and organic. Basically, the populist wing embraced the subject of the Enlightenment, autonomous independent individual. Note: stress on individual, experiential, non-doctrinal or confessional, consumerist faith coupled with the popular view of pastors as inspirational celebrities (George Whitefield, nation’s first national celebrity) rather than theological instructors led to an eventual neglect of the “evangelical mind” among most evangelicals. Religion is a personal and heart thing only: dualism in popular religion. Led to fundamentalist movement; explicit and complete embrace of this view in 2 nd Great Awakening. 2. Rationalists: Established/confessional churches responded to the revivals by stressing a “rational” faith (they were embarrassed) to the point that philosophical rationalism/empiricism among most of these denominations eventually replaced revelation as authoritative well in to the 19 th century.
Started out as a mild concession to challenge of secular Enlightenment (whatever stands test of reason is true; but they believed as Locke did, that Christianity could be proven true by reason/evidence alone). This group came to embrace the methodology of the Enlightenment; scientific investigation using reason and observation alone. Ironically, the form of enlightenment thought embraced by most established church ministers and other intellectuals in America (most founding fathers) was Common Sense Realism, from Thomas Reid in Scotland (referred to as ground of “American Enlightenment”). Reid argued there are truths which are “self-evident” (in response to Hume’s skepticism). They do not need to be defended or explained because they are common sense. No one seriously disputes them, except for bizarre idle philosophers who have nothing better to do. John Witherspoon embraced this view and taught it at Princeton. All important question: What truths are “self-evident”?
Answer from Reid, Witherspoon, and the growing # of “Rational” ministers: Life, liberty, property, self-government, basic teachings of Christianity (God’s existence, His goodness, His creation). These lay the foundation of knowledge; beyond this knowledge is acquired through the Baconian method of science (induction). This seemed to most evangelical thinkers in the 18 th and 19 th centuries to be an unbeatable & satisfactory answer to the more radical/atheistic of Enlightenment thinkers (like Rousseau). This next step in the system, was based on Induction, not Deduction (don’t start with axioms, philosophical systems or set of assumptions and then investigate the world for support; start with observations from sense experience and derive a general theory). Assumes we can all agree on a common standard, facts, or method of truth discovery (neutrality). So, revelation becomes subordinate to reason. Discuss Rationalism, Empiricism, and Revelationalism (TAEs? ). Note: Most Protestant thinkers/scholars/ministers from the rationalist camp pursued this rigorously and ended up at theological liberalism, especially after rise of Darwinism and German Higher Criticism (e. g. , birth of Unitarianism which denies the Trinity; why? ). Some developed “New Calvinism” like Timothy Dwight at Yale. Some remained orthodox but embraced basic methods of Enlightenment thought (Princeton; though discuss Darwin here). But rank & file evangelicals embraced this approach, assumed it would prove the truth of Christianity. The “scientific approach” was considered solely reliable and applied to BOTH science and theology. One does not need history/creeds/confessions if Biblical texts, like scientific data, “speak for themselves. ”
Who needs insight of Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Edwards; Baconian method will reveal truth. Result: more theological shallowness and individualism. Approach Biblical text as isolated individuals, without regard to insight from Christian historical theology. Ethics: Since the new accepted method of truth discovery was Baconian induction, “an effort was made to construct ethics as Bacon had defined the doing of science. ” That is, it was assumed that a “moral sense” was knowable apart from divine revelation. Self-evident Natural Law, apprehended through reason alone, became the basis of ethics for virtually all scholars (evangelicals too). Lower/Upper? Not hard to see the next step: If “rational” morality could be perfectly understood as laws of nature (a purely naturalistic perspective), then Christianity loses its relevance in public and intellectual spheres of society. It’s unneeded. Dualism in Rational Religion. Schaeffer argued that if values, moral laws, etc. can be inductively known through science, experience, reason, then the lower story will “eat up” the upper story (inevitable consequence of Dualism). Alternate view: “Our sense of right and wrong is merely a datum of experience – which must be explained and accounted for by an overarching worldview. And if the Christian worldview is ruled out as an explanatory framework, the [non-]Christian worldviews will rush in to fill the vacuum. ” Evangelical scholars in the late 18 th and 19 th centuries assumed that methodological naturalism and moral science were neutral approaches to truth discovery; findings would prove to be consistent with Christianity.
This opened the door to philosophical naturalism (nature is all that exists). It was not long before scholars embracing this philosophy walked right through the door that had been opened for them” largely by evangelical scholars. – Nancy Pearcey. Result: Secularization of the American university and educational system (Psychology replaces Moral Philosophy; Theology pushed into separate department; Religion largely replaced by Humanities as study of morality, meaning, etc. ). “The naturalistic definition of science was transformed from a methodology into a dominant academic worldview. ” – Marsden. To evangelicals it seemed they were only agreeing to use the same methods of analysis, but what really happened was they were agreeing to the basic presuppositions or worldview assumptions of philosophical naturalism: No science method, no truth (Dawkins – The God Delusion; lower has invaded the upper; e. g. , religion and values do not belong in the science classroom, but science belongs in ethics, the pulpit, moral analysis). 3. The Deists: There were several deists among founders. Nearly all were private about it and did not appear so on the outside (except Thomas Paine). Views: p. 58 C. Where did it go? Critique Bishop Butler and Darwin made deism unnecessary. B. Replacing Classical Republicanism with Classical Liberalism What was played out in the religious realm after 2 nd GA resulted in a virtual break with Classical Republicanism in the political realm.
1. Classical Republicanism in America (from Puritans to Whigs to Federalists): Social institutions like family, church, and state were thought of as organic wholes and units of society, each with a common good transcending individuals’ interests. Words meant different things: Virtue was primarily public, not private (fulfilling responsibilities already laid out for individuals based on civic-obligations; husband-wife, parentchild, pastor-laity, magistrate-citizen). Liberty was publicly defined as well (“federal liberty” is right of each social institution to govern itself and right of individuals to do that which is good or which fulfills covenant obligations). Distinguished between Natural Liberty and Federal Liberty. There is a Liberty of corrupt Nature, which is affected both by Men and Beasts, to do what they list; and this Liberty is inconsistent with Authority, impatient of all Restraint; by this Liberty, we are all the worse. 'Tis the Grand Enemy of Truth and Peace, and all the Ordinances of God are bent against it. But there is a Civil, a Moral, a Federal Liberty, which is the proper End and Object of Authority; it is a Liberty for that only which is just and good; for this Liberty you are to stand with the hazard of your very Lives; and whatsoever Crosses it, is not Authority but a Distemper thereof. John Winthrop Leadership (whatever kind) was an “office” with divine sanction; called to be “disinterested” sacrificing personal interests and ambition for sake of common good of group. Growing criticism, in light of Great Awakening here and Enlightenment thought abroad, was the this was too elitist, authoritarian, and hierarchical (common people considered too self-interested, uneducated, to be trusted with decision-making).
2. Classical Liberalism – based on social contract theory; regarded civil society as voluntary gathering of autonomous individuals. Not an organic whole. No common group good beyond the purposes interests of individual members. No need for a “leadership class” charged with protecting common good. Denies that government is to be place of public virtue; state simply a product of individual choices; worth was functional only (facilitate individual interests). Individuals are basic unit of society (atomistic). By time of American Revolution and certainly the Constitutional Convention, Protestants were split on this issue (supporters and opponents of GA) and the Framers were also divided. But classical liberalism was gaining ground rapidly. IV. Explaining disestablishment of Christian denominations. A. Establishment - How? Meant tithes collected by state, set parish boundaries, pay clergy salaries, hire/fire them, suppress dissent. B. Establishment - Who? Congregationalists (NE), Episcopalians (NY, VA, MD, NC, SC, GA). C. Disestablish. Why? 1. Thought to be impractical and too costly ($ and security). Not really pursuing a secular state, but seen as a means of survival in an age of rapidly growing religious pluralism.
2. Thought to be unnecessary – religion would and could thrive without it (Baptists & Methodists). Monopolizing religion led to religious indifference (low attendance), lazy clergy (paid by state). 3. Concern for religious minorities, especially Christian ones (Sunday mail; VA Baptists (letter); John Jay prayer in Congress). VA debate (p. 75 C). 4. Growing religious toleration in Protestant Theology. Evidence: WCF; Right of Religious Conscious first and only individual right listed in state constitutions in late 18 th century; Great Awakening, as first national event, fostered greater toleration and appreciation for religious pluralism; rise of Baptist Pol-Theology (R. Williams). V. Religion and the Framers (Philadelphia, 1787; Corbett 53 -77). 55 delegates. Next slide: Quote from Historian Paul Johnson A. How religious were they? Depends on measure of religiosity. If religious means orthodox adherence, not very (a great # were unorthodox or even deist after being schooled in Enlightenment thought). If religious means ritualistic, very religious (practically all attended church regularly, many were known as men of prayer, expressed strong support for religious vitality, etc. ). In public pronouncements, used same language that would have been understood in light of evangelical religion (king is corrupt; wants to deprive us of right to self-government, natural rights, etc. ). Also, kept unorthodox religious views private.
“If the U. S. Constitution had been drawn up in 1687 it would have had a religious framework” (i. e. , “broad-based Protestantism as national religion”). “If it had been drawn up in 1887 it would have contained provisions acknowledging the strong spirit of religious belief and practice in America and the need for the state to nurture and underpin it. As it happens…it was actually drawn up at the high tide of 18 th century secularism, which was as yet unpolluted by the fanatical atheism and the bloody excesses of its culminating storm, the French Revolution. Within a very few years, this tide began to ebb, and the religious spirit to flood back. In France this was marked by Chateaubriand’s epoch-making book Le Genie du Christianism (1802), in Britain by the formation of the Clapham Sect in the early 1790 s, and the same decade in the U. S. , by the start of the Second Great Awakening. But in 1787, the new religious impulses, which were to make the 19 th century in to one of the great ages of religious activity and commitment, were not yet felt. Thus the actual language of the Constitution reflects the spirit of its time, which was secular. ” Paul Johnson
B. Assessment – Most framers had theological views that were unorthodox, but not precisely deist. Key example: common acknowledgement of evil nature. Most of the Framers were like Washington (more or less orthodox with episodes of doubt; e. g. , GW and TJ child baptisms). C. Did they see religion having a necessary and public role in society? Four groups (Paine is a loner): 1. Proliferation of True religion is necessary for survival of republic (promotes virtue). State has interest in promoting it. Samuel Adams 2. Judeo-Christian tradition/religion is necessary for survival of republic (nearly all founders). *A few may have had this view: Religion is necessary for survival of republic (promotes virtue). State has an interest in promoting it. “What this country needs is religion and I don't care which one. ” Eisenhower 3. Religion is not essential (legal/institutional design is primary). State support for it undermines both church and state. Read letter from Franklin to Paine. 4. Federalism: To some, federalism was a great solution. Let state governments continue, if they want, to promote the traditional Protestant sense of communal, covenantal, classical republican politics while pursuing a minimalist classical liberal approach nationally. Established churches continued on until the early 19 th century. State constitutions continued to have covenant characteristics as well (religious tests, ban on atheist and Catholic office holders).
D. “Civil Religion” and establishment of “Judeo-Christian tradition” The majority of framers wanted religion to thrive, but they did not want the national government to establish a particular church. Their answer to theological-political problem was Civil Religion. Characteristics: 1. Public support for religious purposes (Northwest Ordinance, prayer, education) 2. Official establishment or acknowledgment of Judeo-Christian deity with toleration for others. VI. The decline of Reformed Covenantalism (our primary version of Classical Republicanism) Though in 1787, Covenantal and Enlightenment thought were both influential over the formation of the American government, the Scottish Enlightenment became the lens through which more and more Americans saw the American political experiment. How? A. American Constitutionalism – increasingly thought of as a technical strictly legal narrow contract; not an document rooted in society’s first principles (SC quickly developed that view too). B. Jacobinism and the French Revolution (1789) – widespread sympathy (e. g. , Jefferson) for radical democratic, even violent, anti-authoritarian popular revolution (laid foundation for similar sympathies in U. S. following Russian Revolution 1920 s).
C. Social Darwinism, Anglophilism, and Northwestern European racism – these ideologies provided intellectual justification for theories that stressed “natural outcomes” including the disappearance of the “unfit” and rise of racial supremacy. D. Rise of Marxism after Russian Revolution – attacked federal democracy (republicanism) directly and argued it was a system designed to protect the economic interests of the upper class. E. Southern Compact theory – Constitution merely a legal arrangement among states or a solemn pact among all entities which is not revocable? Lincoln argued for the Union and abolition in covenantal terms, but was assassinated before further development. Some have marked the election of 1800 between Jefferson and Adams (both were Unitarians by this time, but Adams was popularized as the more orthodox or at least pious of the two). Jefferson won. Discussion: Evidence of movement away from Covenantalism today? Politicians; marriage; etc.
Religion and American Law I. Religion and the Constitution A. Refers nowhere to God. When Hamilton was asked why God was not invoked in the preamble, he replied “We forgot it. ” Why the failure to include God in the Constitution? B. Federalism: most at the time viewed the states as the primary unit of political community. Therefore, the framers left religious matters to state constitutions. Most state constitutions had establishments and many even into the 19 th century had constitutionally endorsed Christianity and even particular denominations. But even at the national level, it is not clear what disestablishment means, as we will see. Could just be new respect for religious pluralism/diversity and nothing more. C. The constitution mentions religion, however, in a few ways: 1. Article VI: Ban on religious tests for public office: some think this was an intention to keep religious observers out of public office, others think it is to protect religious observers when they are in public office (rights of conscience and keeping nonpreferentialism). 2. Sunday exception clause: Article I, Section 7: does not count Sunday against the President with respect to the veto (10 days to consider a bill)
3. Dated as “in the Year of our Lord” II. How much information did the Framers receive from religion or Christianity when constructing and thinking of the constitution and American politics? n Constitutionalism: Fusion of Puritan compact theory (Mayflower, colonial charters) and Secular Enlightenment Contract theories (a Hybrid) n View of human nature: Historian Sydney Ahlstrom “the Federalist Papers as well as John Adams’s defenses of the American constitutions, can be read as Puritan contributions to Enlightenment political theory” (1972, 363). As James Madison said, “If all men were angels no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. ” n Role of Religion: “necessary” or at least “helpful” to civic virtue, the foundation of American social/political success (possible exception of Madison). Washington called the claim that “morality can be maintained without religion” as a. ”
mere “supposition. ” Adams said simply “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other But Madison argued that social order might be sustained simply through the right combination of institutional checks and balances and separation of powers. But the consensus of giving religion an important even necessary role to sustaining the country “virtually invited churches to become the institutional defenders of justice and the moral law in politics. ” And they have done just that from defending the Cherokees against treaty violations, to abolition, to Civil Rights, helping the poor and feeding the hungry, abortion, etc. n General consensus, to practically all the Framers, Reason and Religion (Revelation) were either handmaidens to the other in some order. But they were both needed to maintain virtue and morality in society. Some people might be able to depend upon Reason alone (as Franklin argued to Paine), but most others needed Religion (Witherspoon and Henry). Basically, they supported the promotion of Civil Religion (formal and gov’t acknowledgement of God in both official and unofficial capacities).
II. The 1 st amendment and religion: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. ” A. History of the Establishment Clause (692) Madison penned it and wanted the First Congress to restrict both states and Congress from respecting an establishment of religion. His attempt failed House version read “Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. ” Would’ve allowed Congress to fund religion in general. HR and Senate compromise became final and current version after conference committee chaired by Madison. But what is “respecting” and what is “no law” and what is “establishment” and how is it balanced against “free exercise”?
B. Establishment clause views: Accommodation or nonpreferentialism – Constitution only forbids government endorsement of particular religions or denominations. It is permissible, perhaps laudable, to take steps in government to promote religious proliferation. Henry and Rehnquist Strict separation and strict neutrality – Constitution forbids all direct aid or support of particular religions, religious institutions, or religion in general. Law must have a secular purpose and any aid must be completely incidental. Black Positive neutrality – government must not discriminate between religions or religion and irreligion. Stephen Monsma and University of Virginia
C. Different Courts and different interpretations: More or less silent or accommodationist prior to 1947 Vinson Court: Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township (1947). Black wrote the majority opinion and stated that the 1 st amendment erects a high-wall of separation between church and state. He took a strict separation approach (no intentional effort to aid religion in general or particular). The dissenters did not think Black went far enough because he actually seemed to allow for laws that knowingly aid religion indirectly. If religion is a classification, the government must refrain from involvement with it (in this case, reimbursing parents for costs of busing to religious schools). Favored no aid test. Warren Court moved towards strict neutrality (no aid test or strict neutrality). Burger and Rehnquist moved more towards an accommodationist approach. Both ruled that government could not discriminate against religious organization’s use of school facilities, for example.
IV. Cases and tests Schemp test: two part 1) secular purpose 2) primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion. Came from case in 1963. Discuss Engel v. Vital (1962). Used to overturn AR law forbidding teaching evolution in Epperson v. Arkansas (1968). Then Burger was appointed and takes over as Chief and modifies the Schemp test so as to make governmental accommodation more possible (adds “excessive government entanglement with religion” as the third prong). Discuss Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). On its face, appeared to be more permissive of accommodation, but the entanglement requirement served only to confuse things (inherent contradiction: cases turned on the degree of entanglement and case facts; prong two requires the gov’t not to advance or inhibit religion by monitoring their policies/programs for religious activities, but that would violate prong three’s excessive entanglement). Lemon was so ambiguously applied that the court became divided over clearer & consistent positions of accommodation verses strict separation again. Sometimes it is used, other times not even mentioned, other times it is used by some justices and not by others in the same case, and other times it is applied with different results in the same case by different justices!
In Wallace v. Jaffree (1985: AL moment of silence), criticism of the test was evident when Stevens halfheartedly uses Lemon, but O’Conner, Burger, and Rehnquist criticize it. O’Conner “endorsement test. ” Edwards v. Aguillard (1987). How was Lemon used here? Lee v. Weisman (1992) – court ruled that prayer at graduation is unconstitutional (establishment). Explicitly refused to throw out the Lemon test here, despite the dissenters objections. The Rehnquist court continues to apply it, but still ambiguously and selectively. As a result, some religious groups have begun suing on the basis that when the government does not benefit them, they are being denied equal treatment and their free speech is denied. Rosenberger v. The Rector of Visitors of the University of Virginia (1995). Interesting situation where the court approves perhaps for the first time direct-aid for religious activities. Here, Kennedy and majority conclude that when UVA opened a forum to all viewpoints except religious ones, it violated free speech (engaged in viewpoint discrimination rather than content-based discrimination) and would not violate establishment by funding indiscriminately religious as well as non-religious student publications equally.
Dissenters said it was not viewpoint discrimination since Christianity was not the only religion singled out. Further, it is establishment since the question in previous cases was not whether religion was treated equally with other worldviews, but whether any benefits to religion were incidental when the state attempts to fund with a secular purpose and tries to keep the sectarian and secular activities separate. Signal: Positive Neutrality (but Lemon still not overturned)? The Rehnquist court generally overturned previous decisions in two cases Agostini v. Felton (1997) and Mitchell v. Helms (2000). Both allowed gov’t to fund private religious schools for educational purposes. “The New York program under which public school teachers were sent into parochial schools did not provide parochial schools with any incentive, financial or other, to establish religion in order to attract public school teachers. ” The Court added that under its new view, only those policies which generate an excessive conflict between church and state will be deemed to violate the Establishment Clause. As such, one should no longer find that all entanglements between church and state have a distinctly positive or negative impact on religion. ” In Mitchell, Justice Thomas wrote, "[i]f the religious, irreligious, and areligious are all alike eligible for governmental aid, no one would conclude that any indoctrination that any particular recipient conducts has been done at the behest of the government. "
V. Conclusion A. Summary of Establishment Clause jurisprudence 1. Confusion (read p. 234 in Fowler). 2. Case in point? The Public Display of the Decalogue In Van Orden v. Perry (2005; involving a statue on state capitol grounds) and Mc. Creary County vs ACLU (2005; involving displays on walls of two state courthouses in KY), the court split opposite ways. Both decisions were 5 -4, with Stephen Breyer as the swing voter. One side said they were both unconstitutional because they involved an active government endorsement of either religion in general or particular religions (no secular purpose: "This is no time to deny the prudence of understanding the [First Amendment] to require the Government to stay neutral on religious belief, which is reserved for the conscience of the individual. " from Souter’s opinion). Neutral, of course, means secular. The other said that government is permitted to recognize, at least passively if not favorably, religion in general, certainly as a historical foundation of civil law in America (“the Ten Commandments have an undeniable historical meaning. . Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the [First Amendment. ] from Rehnquist opinion).
For Breyer, the historical and contextual difference between the displays was very important. He argued that one was 40 years old and erected with only secular fanfare amidst several other foundation of law displays. The other was only about 10 years old and was celebrated with religious fanfare. It was displayed exclusively. Prescription for lawmakers? Disguise your purposes; you can publicly display that which is religious, but you can’t publicly believe that which is religious. Discussion: How would the Framers have felt about this case? Does it matter? Reaction B. Current issues in Establishment (court wants to balance state activities that are seen as establishing religion in schools and those that benefit children) 1. Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002): though 96% of students who opted for school choice program enrolled in religious schools court ruled that it was constitutional since parents and not the government was directing funds. 2. Locke v Davey (2004): Keep this one in mind for the next chapter on Free Exercise 3. Georgia public schools and Bible classes
Free Exercise of Religion I. Free Exercise: freedom from governmental coercion in selecting a religion or no religion at all. Not absolute (prosecutions for religious practices, but not beliefs; e. g. , snake handling, taking drugs, businesses and Sunday closings). A. Those supporting strict neutrality in establishment cases thought this was too harsh in free exercise cases. Tension: They wanted to define what religion was in establishment but generally leave it open in free exercise (separationists in establishment cases tend to be accommodation in free exercise cases). Alternative tests: “least drastic means test” from Sherbert v. Verner (1963). Was there a “less drastic” alternative method for the state to accomplish its secular purpose in the process of violating free exercise (7 th Day Adventist refused to work on Sunday but wanted unemployment compensation from state)? Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972): “Court basically balances those claims against competing governmental interests, taking into consideration the nature of the regulation [necessary], the centrality of a religious belief, and the equality in treatment of religion” (O’Brien 799). This basically came to be known as the Sherbert Test.
Even if coercive, state interests may be superior (ban on Jewish yarmulkes in military and road construction in a forest where Indian tribe traditionally used for religious purposes. B. Most difficult thing with respect to free exercise: defining religious practice. Who should? Government, Court, or individual? Waite view (upholding law banning polygamy challenged by Mormons; p. 800): Understanding at the time the law was adopted. Rutledge cautioned against any of these attempts because the Court was hesitant to do the same with respect to establishment (800). Implications of narrow definition for establishment and free exercise? Broad? Well, if narrow, then state can not establish national church, and state is far less sensitive to protect individuals practicing any kind of religion they choose or formulate. If broad, then strict separation/neutrality in establishment and claims of religious practice (free exercise) can justify nearly anything claimed to be religious subjectively defined.
United States v. Ballard (1944) on page 800. Court ruled not the court’s business to determine if Ballard’s religious claims (beliefs) are true or legitimate. “Men may believe what they cannot prove” wrote Douglas. Dissenting, Stone argued that the court must engage in defining legitimacy when someone uses religion to make knowingly false statements (800); basically saying that it is a dangerous precedent TO NOT attempt to define religion objectively. Look at Douglas, Jackson, and Stone. Court generally takes an broad/expansive view of what is religion however. Consider the “conscientious objector” cases. Congressional law allowed someone to refrain from service if their views “in relation to a Supreme being” were violated. Court, however, overturned and required equal treatment for those with contrary views that are not associated with a particular religion (atheists and irreligious; ethics, morals equal to religious convictions). Positive neutrality?
Observation: Irreligion and atheism is being treated as religion in “free exercise” cases but not in “establishment” cases. Basically in Free Exercise cases, the court EQUATES all worldviews (comprehensive set of beliefs and assumptions about how the world fits together). Court’s opinion: Atheists are entitled to conscientious exemption because the test of religious belief is “whether a given belief that is sincere and meaningful occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God of one who clearly qualifies for the exemption. Where such beliefs have parallel positions in the lives of their respective holders we cannot say that one is ‘in relation to a Supreme Being’ and the other is not. ” Clearly, the court in defining religion disregards belief in God or the supernatural and considers all worldviews to be religious (at least in free exercise cases). Sherbert’s test was applied when unemployment compensation was denied individuals who lost jobs due to religious beliefs. This practice was curtailed, however, in Employment Division, Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1990). Where did Scalia draw the line? New Smith test?
Establishment Clause Cases Free Exercise Clause Cases Strict Separationists Religion = Narrowly defined; primarily the popular “major” religions; does NOT include any worldview, particularly secularism (state is free to be secular) Broadly defined by individuals; all worldviews considered “religious” including secularism; Sherbert Test preferred test for protecting FE (more protection of minority religious practice) Accommodation and Positive Neutrality Broadly defined so as to include all worldviews, including secularism; thus, establishing secularism is establishing religion For accommodationists, defined narrowly implicitly; offers less protection for minority religions; de facto favor for more “established” religions; Positive Neutralists still want it defined broadly
Religion and Politics Quiz: 1. Name one of the two states involved in the Creation Science cases (e. g. , Edwards vs Aguillard): 2. Positive neutrality: a. requires the state to be evenhanded between religion and irreligion b. requires the state is to be neutral with respect to religions c. asserts that the state is free to take steps that advance religion in the public sector 3. In the Locke case, which state is involved? 4. What is your name?
Scalia’s problem with the Sherbert test: 1. Created a “private right to ignore generally applicable laws. ” Instead, as long as the law’s burden on free exercise of religion is merely “an incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, ” it is constitutional. Argues that Sherbert creates a situation where government can only prohibit behavior if the behavior is not “accompanied by religious convictions. ” 2. Won’t do to say those convictions must be “central” because this would require judges to determine what is and is not a “centrally held belief” of an alleged religion. Not equipped for that. “What principle of law or logic can be brought to bear to contradict a believer’s assertion that a particular act is ‘central’ to his personal faith? ” This ruling was criticized by many and should be compared with the ruling in Church of the Lukemi Babula Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993). In this case, for example, Justice Blackmun asserts that the Smith test treats “the Free Exercise Clause as no more than an antidiscrimination principle’ rather than a fundamental right.
Although the Rehnquist court in the Lukemi Babula case asserted that Scalia’s new Smith test had been satisfied, Congress wanted the Court to return to the Sherbert test and passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 1993. Act was challenged in City of Boerne v. Flores (1997). Court ruled that Congress did not have power, under 14 th amendment enforcement power (Section 5), to enforce constitutional rights broader than previously interpreted by Court continued to rely upon Smith as the new test. Compare Smith and Sherbert: “In evaluating the claim (unemployment benefits to those who lost jobs due to religious use of peyote), we declined to apply the balancing test set forth in Sherbert, under which we would have asked whether the Oregon’s prohibition substantially burdened a religious practice and, if it did, whether the burden was justified by a compelling government interest…The application of the Sherbert test, the Smith decision explained, would have produced an anomaly in the law, a constitutional right to ignore neutral laws of general applicability. The anomaly would have been accentuated, the Court reasoned, by the difficulty of determining whether a particular practice was central to an individual’s religion. ”
Basically we end up with a kind of scale protecting religious minorities according to the degree to which they are being targeted by the state. Between the clauses: Some have argued that the court is contradicting itself. Justices on one side want to accommodate religion in establishment cases, but not in free exercise. Others want strict neutrality in establishment, but not in free exercise. Others accuse the court of selective accommodation: conservative justices are more accommodating to religion in establishment because it is usually Christianity, but less accommodating in free exercise because it is usually a minority religious group. Perhaps liberal justices tend to rule just the opposite. Discuss Locke Case
TX U. S. Supreme Court
Politics, Religion, and Ethnic/Religious Minorities in America: Focus on Muslims, Jews, and Mormons “Smaller religions have important lessons to teach us about what they do, how they protect themselves, and how they advance their values. ” Fowler et al. p. 57 I. The Jews – 2% of population; monotheistic with the Torah (OT) as their sacred text. Central religious figure = Moses. A. Characteristics of Jews 1. Demographically well-off 2. Disproportionately influential in law, business, politics, journalism, and entertainment 3. Politically liberal – disproportionately influential in the Democratic party as well. B. 3 groupings: Reform (39%); Conservative (33%); Orthodox (21%; most traditional). C. Religious Characteristics
1. Synagogue attendance very low (less than 25% once a month). 2. Label is increasingly an ethnic identity more than indicating a religious practice Increasingly secular in worldview Losing culturally distinctive identity (especially among young) Intermarriage growing (50% today) and birthrates lower than necessary to replace population D. Political ideology and Judaism 1. Theological liberalism dominates Judaism today (3/4 s either Reform or Conservative). Theology of “deeds not creeds” such that Atheism or Agnosticism is theoretically and practically tenable in most Jewish thought. Reform Judaism more or less approximates the secular enlightenment philosophy. 2. History of persecution – fostered concern for religious minorities and other disadvantaged groups. E. Orthodox are the most Politically Conservative 1. Ultraconservative Jews (like Hasidic Jews) hold politically conservative views on cultural and social issues. However…
this group often practices withdrawal (similar to __________). 2. Was and is prominent among the “Neo. Conservatives” (Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Gertrude Himmelfarb, Bill Kristol, and David Horowitz; Weekly Standard). 3. American Jews and Israel – has connected Jews to American conservatism quite frequently. U. S. is a strong ally of Israel and the GOP is consistently seen as Israel’s strongest supporters Dispensational Theology among Protestants – according to DT, Christians (really everyone) are commanded to be especially kind towards and protective of the Jews as God’s chosen people. Pastor John Hagee and the “Christian Zionist” movement calls for the U. S. and Christ’s church, as instruments of God’s prophetic fulfillment of land promises to Israel, to tenaciously defend and fight against Israel’s enemies. The American Israeli Public Affairs Committee is among the top five most powerful lobbies in D. C. II. Islam – (1% roughly; 2 -6 million people; rapidly outpacing Jews in number; 1, 200 mosques up from 1 in 1930; nearly all 1 st or 2 nd generation immigrants)
A. History – Mohammed, the central figure in Islam, lived in the late 6 th and early 7 th century in and near Mecca; claimed to have received revelation from Allah (via the angel Gabriel) throughout his life; his sermons and teachings are set down in the Quran (Islamic sacred text); won enough converts through preaching and conquest of nearby cities to eventually make all the Arabian peninsula Islamic B. Theology – One God; many prophets (Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Mohammed); God created angels (some good some evil); The Qur’an is the final revelation of God (the Hadith is another holy book but of lesser authority); Judgment is coming (heaven and hell) and is based on unquestioned obedience to Allah and his prophet Mohammed. To be a Muslim (or remain so), one must confess “There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger”; pray five times a day; fast through the ninth lunar month of Ramadan; give alms to the need (1/40 of income); Make trip to Mecca in one’s lifetime. Some include a 6 th “pillar” of Jihad C. Two broad divisions: Shi’ite (Shia) and Sunni are divided originally over who the appropriate successor to Mohammed is. 1. Shia believe that the leader of Islam (Imam) should be appointed by God through each descendent of Mohammed (first was Ali, a cousin and then son-in-law of Mohammed).
Iran (90%) as well as Hezbollah (a militant hardcore Islamic party/paramilitary group in Lebanon calling for the extermination of Israel); 2003 Iraqi elections/constitution favored by Shia. 2. Sunni, larger of the two, recognize the first four Caliphs and the means of selecting them as appropriate (election). Sunni are a slight minority but recently most dominate force in Iraq (Hussein was Sunni); Al Queda is sunni too; Afghanistan and former Taliban are Sunni (90%).
C. Islam in American Society/Politics – 40% Black Muslim (historically separatist); 25% South Asian (India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh); 12% Arab 1. Fear among many in the West (less so here) is that Muslims will engage politics with the purpose of enacting/enforcing Sharia law (Islamic law regulating everything from religious practice to crime control to foreign affairs). Clearly advocated by sizable Islamic groups in Europe, but not as much here. Kenneth Wald notes the difference in America between Muslims and Islamists (Islamists are the minority favoring immediate enforcement of Sharia law). 2. Key political groups – Islamic Society of North America – concerned with civil liberties protections for Muslims, especially after 9/11. 3. 9/11 and its aftermath has caused many Muslims to unite in order to refute and fight against mischaracterizations of American Muslims. 3. Conservative on Social Affairs – since they are typically socially conservative, many thought that Muslims may become an ally of the GOP (majority voted for Bush in 2000). But 9/11 and the War on Terror changed all that (93% voted against Bush in 2004). 4. Prospects for an effective Muslim political movement are
ambiguous. Must deal with ethnic differences brought from abroad; modernity or secular appeal of modernity in America as well as the distinct Black Muslim movement in America; relations to Jews, view of women. Etc. May have been united around the War, but no clear common political agenda. III. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) A. Who? 1 -2% (5. 7 m); nearly all white; much higher levels of church attendance than others; fastest growing religious group; heavily concentrated geographically in Utah (70%) and a couple other mountain west states (Idaho 27%) B. History: established in 1830 by Joseph Smith, who claimed to have received revelation from the angel Moroni told him that “golden plates” were buried near his NY home, the information of which translated into the Book of Mormon (book of beliefs and history, written by various men; teaches that ancient Israelite prophets – ancestors of Native Americans - sailed to the Americas from Jerusalem in 600 BC foretelling the coming of the Messiah; Christ came to them and gave them a “second testimony” after His resurrection and ascension; one of 4 inspired books in Mormon theology; Bible, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine and Covenants). Mormons taught the concept of unified just communities and set these up as thy migrated to Utah in the 19 th century. Smith, killed 1844, replaced by BY.
B. Basic Beliefs – God was once a man who achieved deity through righteous living (model for man). He and his wife produced spirit offspring who later came to earth in human form in order to be more like God. Their inability to do so perfectly prompted God to send Jesus Christ, our eldest brother, to suffer for their sins; world rejected the gospel and church fell away from truth shortly after ascension, “restored” in 1830; full salvation is achieved through faith, repentance, obedience to God, baptism, receipt of the Holy Ghost; all spirit children will return to God at judgment with varying degrees of reward and punishment; Zion is the New Jerusalem, a future place in America, where Christ will return and rule in person as the former tribes of Israel reunite; prophets and apostles still hear from God within the context of LDS leadership; slow minority trend today is towards inclusivism and even universal salvation; less dogmatic on sacred text than before. C. Political History – Mormons were treated with suspicion by many Americans. Their communalism, separatism (People’s Political Party), alleged heresy, bloc voting, support for polygamy, led many to take political action against them (SC actually upheld a law legally dissolving the organization). Assimilative actions by the church (abandon polygamy, dissolve Party, encourage traditional political behavior, etc. ) resulted in recognition of Utah as a state in 1896.
D. Mormons and Politics today – most politically cohesive religious group (90% vote GOP); dominate business, news media, and politics in Utah where 80% state legislators are Mormon; claim 16 congressional seats including key figures like Orrin Hatch and 2008 presidential hopeful, former Governor of MA Mitt Romney). “Strict church” (i. e. , highly active religious life) coupled with necessary obedience to the head LDS prophet produces great political cohesion and member mobilization, but church leaders take these issue positions infrequently. Tend to be cultural conservatives on culture war issues, but a bit more liberal on many others. E. Constraints on Mormon political influence – same as before regarding theology (seen as a “cult” by many Christians); geographically constrained. Will evangelicals support Romney if he is the GOP nominee?
Religion, Ethnic Minorities, and Women “For many minority communities, it is difficult to separate religious culture from the culture of the minority group. ” Kenneth Wald I. African-American Protestants A. Black churches 1. History: due to racial segregation, black churches and denominations were established separately from white ones. Theology was rarely the point of division. 2. Black freedom – Black church movement = first black freedom movement. 3. Became medium for civil society in the black community (absence of other viable institutions). Many secular activities were facilitated through black churches as a result (e. g. , taxes, voter registration, publishing, entertainment, etc. ) B. Religion as basis for cultural cohesion – “The black church” refers to hundreds of disparate, but largely united, organizations.
C. Political Activism – black Protestants have a long tradition of viewing faith and church as vehicles of political and social change (e. g. , MLK and the Southern Leadership Conference; Question: should he/they have been rebuked for mixing faith and politics? ). Due in part to black theological parallels between the Hebrew Exodus and American slavery/racial discrimination as well as Christian equality before God. “I have seen the promised land…” and “Go tell it on the mountain, let my people go…” and “I have a dream…” D. Political behavior - Black voting since the end of mandatory racial segregation and the Civil Rights act has reflected this unity. 1. Turnout - Frequent black churchgoers are more likely to vote than others (same as non-blacks). Their #’s only slightly less than whites. 2. Explaining the political effectiveness of Black churches:
4. Church environment = platform for political learning. Unique historical position; high esteem extended to ministers (Hattiesburg signs); unabashedly political polemically; site for explicit and implicit political networking. Source for fostering social capital – churches foster the development of interpersonal trust, access to networks, beliefs about community responsibility (applies to churches in general). AA church culture has always been theologically politically engaged – prayer, song, dialogue, rituals, and Christian imagery. This group of religious adherents are more likely than any other to have and attend church meetings about politics. Political liberalism – interesting contrast with Mormons. BP’s are theologically orthodox but politically liberal. Mormons not theologically orthodox, but politically conservative. BPs are mostly conservative, like white evangelicals, on moral-cultural issues (e. g. , gay marriage; school prayer, etc. ), but nothing else (even slippage here regarding abortion). PID: Blacks are the most reliable voting bloc in America (favoring Dems); again largely facilitated by the church, especially in the south (half of all AAs live in the South). Significant surge when Jesse Jackson ran in 1984 & 88. In 2004, over 65% identify as DEM and over 90% voted for Kerry).
Common to have Dem candidates visit black churches due to their dependence upon the black vote. If the GOP suddenly received 20% of the black vote, they would virtually always win the White House (10% would usually do). E. Changes in Black-Protestant politics? 1. Frustration with perceived limited progress (we are a “tool” of the Dem Party). Always has been an element calling for more aggression and independence politically (Malcom X, Black Panthers, Nation of Islam). 2. Church attendance among AAs dropping, especially among young, men, and poor. 3. Takeover of secular political leaders in politics (ministers no longer monopolize political power) 4. Nature of black church has changed - increasingly caught up in the larger charismatic/pentecostal movement which is more apolitical (e. g. , TD Jakes); now 15 -20% of AAs are no longer members of BP churches; many are joining white churches who are far more welcoming than decades ago. II. Latinos – most difficult group to generalize about due to constant religious and demographic changes. Originally, many scholars assumed that religion was not an important factor in Latino politics. But that view is changing.
A. 1. 2. B. Catholicism among Latinos (4. 5% total pop and 60% of Latinos). The Spanish conquistadores brought its Catholicism and its language to the Americas in the 16 th. C. Latino Catholics immigrated to North America prior to the Puritans. Emphasize Catholic Marion doctrines and family a bit more than other Catholics. But… Many others are cold towards Catholicism; associate it with historical conquest; lack of Spanish-speaking masses; American Catholicism has been associated with Irish immigrants; have been relatively few Hispanic Catholic bishops here and abroad; first Mexican-American bishop installed in 1970; religious focus different among Latino Catholics and Euro-American Catholics Defections and declining replacement: % of Latino Catholics is falling (despite Catholic growth among other people groups). Protestants and Latinos – Protestants, especially evangelicals, charasmatics, and pentecostals have made significant inroads especially among native born Latinos (have Latino services, Latino youth groups, etc. Pentecostals and charasmatics (those who stress miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit and non-elitism in church) have historically been the most multi-racial and racially tolerant and Latinos have responded (estimated 5 m Latino Pentecostals). Today, Latinos are 60% Catholic, 23% evangelical, 7% mainline, 9% unaffiliated.
C. Latino faith and politics – far less likely to see or use church as a vehicle for political action (more likely to set up secular political organizations for that; church deals more with the strictly spiritual). But some see political potential among Latinos because of its population growth in America (37 m, 150% growth since 1980). More likely than blacks to disapprove of churches expressing political views. 1. For the GOP: Latinos, especially the more religious and protestant ones, are more socially conservative on abortion, homosexuality, and “family values” issues. 70% favor school prayer and 60% favor school vouchers. Bush has done well among Latinos compared to blacks (44% in 2004, 34% in 2000; 63% Latino P; 31% Latino C). He included many Latinos among his friends and appointees both in DC and Texas. Latinos are mostly Democratic, but Latino Protestants are divided and evangelical Latinos are slightly more Republican. 2. For the DEMs: More Latino Catholics are Democrats (45%) but most voted for Kerry (56%); but among the “most committed” to religion and evangelical these numbers fall dramatically; Latino Protestants are more likely to identify than Catholics to be Republican. Latinos are generally more liberal on “non-morality” issues like government social services spending, especially as income goes down; So, it would be good politically for DEMs if Latinos got poorer, less religious or more nominally Catholic, and turned out more in elections.
Religion in Contemporary American Politics Questions for this section: What is the “God Gap” in American politics? How did it arise? What role does religion play in vote choice and public opinion? I. God Gap: Where are we and how did we get here? A. The 2004 election; what did it show us? 1. Mainline Protestants have continued to become more Democratic and Evangelicals more Republican 2. The more religiously active of all types increased their support for the GOP 3. Latino Protestants moved significantly to the GOP 4. Social issues mattered more for Bush’s religious constituents; economic issues mattered most for all of Kerry’s constituent groups B. Today’s partisanship and vote choice, by the numbers: 1. Partisanship 2. Vote Choice
C. The mobilization of Evangelical Protestants In 1960, there were more people in the (what are now considered) Mainline Protestant churches than Evangelical churches (40 to 27%). Today that number is 15 -25%. Further, they were strongly Republican. In 1960, Evangelicals were Democratic (their overall % of pop stayed the same at about 20 -30%). But they began defecting and/or being replaced by younger GOP leaning evangelicals. In 1960, Catholics were strongly Democratic. They are split today with traditional Catholics voting more for the GOP. 1. What happened? A religious realignment. “The 1960 s and 1970 s introduced a new cultural politics, associated with the counterculture, sexual revolution, newly legalized abortion, women’s rights, and gay rights. ” That is, when the Dem Party introduced culture war issues and the more orthodox and traditional responded by becoming either independent or Republican. Further, seculars and the less religious responded by moving to the Democratic party. The GOP seized the opportunity by courting theologically orthodox (especially Reagan; Kennedy story).
2. Key: prior to the 70 s, religious traditionalism, orthodoxy, beliefs, were not significant predictors of PID or vote choice. Socioeconomic and demographic factors were the primary predictor of vote choice (no longer the case). Polarizing Trend data from 1952 to present, the political differences between those attending church frequently and those attending infrequently grew dramatically on at least the following issues: GOP vote choice for President, House, and PID (from no difference to 20 -25 points) Regarding the same political behaviors since 1980; distance between those who say religion is important to them and others grew from 5 -10 favoring GOP to 20 -30 points From 1964, same behaviors; distance between “Biblical literalists” and “Biblical minimalists” grew from no difference to 30 -38 points) Occurred in Two Waves (late 1970 s and early 1990 s): Key formative events include the formation of the Moral Majority, election and friendship of Reagan, the age of liberalism in the DEM party in the 1970 s and 1980 s, Pat Robertson candidacy, formation of Christian Coalition, Pat Buchanan campaigns, 1994 election (turnout, Contract with America, and big GOP bump from evangelicals); nomination of George W. Bush. GOP support among evangelicals higher than ever. Public Opinion on Policy Issues
a. Evangelicals are the least in favor of economic liberalism (25%) and Black Protestants are the most (51%). b. Evangelicals are most likely to agree that “new lifestyles” will destroy society (80%) while seculars and Jews are least (45%). c. Jews, Hisp. Catholics, and seculars most likely to favor absolute gender equality in all spheres of society (80%), EP and LDS least (65% and 50% respectively) d. Abortion – Hisp Protestants and EPs least likely to favor unrestricted abortion (15 & 22%); Jews and seculars most likely (80 and 59%). Most people of all traditions are in the middle. e. Committed evangelicals most likely to agree that homosexuality should be discouraged (78%); Jews and seculars least likely (18% and 26%). Less than 10% of LDS and EPs favor same-sex marriage compared to 50% of seculars and 67% of Jews; 74% EPs disfavor gay adoption compared to 18 and 36% of Jews and seculars (Catholics split; BP = 70%). f. Committed evangelicals, C mainliners, C C, most likely to id as conservatives (75, 56, 45%); BP, seculars least likely (30%). g. EP most likely to say cultural issues are important (48%); seculars, noncommitted Catholics, C BP, least likely (13 and 20%). h. EPs least supportive of Aff Action, most conservative on military and defense (nearly 80% of EP and LDS support Iraq war compared to 13% of Muslims, 22% of BPs, 32% of Jews, 34% seculars, 50% HC, 55% MP, 58% C). Key point for culture war discussion though, lots of people in the middle.
2. Rise of the New Christian Right (NCR): The Causes Evangelicals began to climb the socio-economic ladder Theological divisions; the progressives vs the orthodox. Religious camps in the past were typically denominational; alliances across denominational boundaries were rare. But, in the 20 th century, theological orthodoxy became the most important dividing line among the religious, not denomination. Traditional Catholics discovered they had more enemies within Catholic circles than among the evangelicals (same could be said of Protestants regarding their own denominations). In the 20 th century, churches responded to theological liberalism by splitting off (PCA) or reforming from within (SBC). Today, what matters most in Protestantism is evangelicalism, not church affiliation (sharing pulpits). These theological alliances provided the framework for future political alliances and organizations in the Christian Right (Pat Robertson - Charismatic, D. James Kennedy - Presbyterian, and Jerry Falwell - Baptist).
Emergence of Culture War issues, especially as partisan issues (that is, when parties and candidates took sides, religious views on culture war issues became divided not just theologically but now along party lines as well. Dramatic increases in and moral acceptance of teen pregnancy and births (% of births to unmarried teens grew from 15 to 70%), illegitimacy (5% 1960 to 35% today, much more dramatic for minorities with blacks, for example currently at 70% up from 22% in 1960), crime, pornography, # and rate of abortions (million a year), television content (Seinfeld’s “The Contest” vs The Andy Griffith cast), sexualization of youth culture/entertainment (and stat associated rise in promiscuity), working mothers, cohabitation, age and likelihood of marriage, ratio of divorces to marriages (. 26 to. 51), social acceptance of homosexuality, juvenile delinquency (17 per 1000 juveniles to 55); Supreme Court opinions involving abortion, secularization of public schools, school prayer, homosexual rights, creationism, sex education, suicide, pornography and first amendment, etc. Read p. 108 -109 of Brewer and Stonecash. Media – The NCR drawing on its institutional base (churches), took advantage of technological advancements and opportunities (from radio and television to webcasts and satellite, “Justice Sunday”). 1000 of 9000 radio stations are religious.
Embraced the approach of Neo. Evangelicals and Reconstructionists – prior to the 1970 s, evangelicals largely believed (as good fundamentalists and dispensationalists) that this world did not matter much. In fact, things were going to get irreversibly worse just prior to Christ’s return (prophecy). The church should concern itself only with saving souls, not worldly things like politics (weapons of our warfare not carnal). But the Neo. Evangelicals and Reconstructionists, for different reasons, successfully convinced the others that God commands Christians to be politically active (render unto Ceasar; redeem the culture; kingdom work extends to politics; etc. ). "When I was growing up, " recalls Fundamentalist Pastor Keith Gephart of Alameda, Calif. , "I always heard that churches should stay out of politics. Now it seems almost a sin not to get involved. " A giving people – evangelicals give money and time. They give lots of money and time. They give more money and time than other religious or non-religious people. Not only do they give lots to their churches, but they give significantly more to other religious and nonreligious non-profits (including charities and political interest groups) than others. They are more likely to believe they should and less likely to make excuses when they don’t than others. The NCR, with all of its fund-raising and group membership drives, have thrived on this.
3. 4. Who is the NCR? Evangelicals, but disproportionately fundamentalist (fewer confessional and reformed folk). Historian George Marsden jokes, “A fundamentalist is an evangelical who is angry about something. ” A fundamentalist, though no longer apolitical, is typically far more politically concerned about the moral behavior of non-believers than other evangelicals. Groups – Started with the Moral Majority, then the Christian Coalition, now the American Family Association (but also, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, Center for Reclaiming America, Alliance Defense Fund, Traditional Values Coalition, Concerned Women of America, Eagle Forum, etc. ) People – James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, D. James Kennedy, Tony Perkins, Chuck Colson, Phyllis Schaffley Changes in the NCR – though the number of NCR identifiers and sympathizers has not seriously changed since the early 80 s, the NCR has experienced a few changes: Less visible in the GOP – Many believe that the 1992 GOP convention hurt the Republicans because so many keynote speakers were NCR representatives (Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson). Today, they are rarely allowed to speak at the GOP and the few that do have softened their rhetoric.
Focus a bit less on national elections and more on state and local political issues (gay marriage; abortion) Has occasionally expanded its issue list, but this has been hard (why include lower taxes and immigration reform? Why exclude environmental policy? Appears to be more “mainstream” and less organizational and peripheral inside the GOP. A gradually growing group of evangelicals share the same values on cultural issues, vote GOP, but have more diverse views on other issues and do not like to be identified with the NCR. They would laugh at my Lord’s Prayer joke. 5. Assessing the success of the NCR Some have argued that the NCR has been ineffective given its goals. Abortion is still legal, cultural change (“moral decline”) has only increased more rapidly, no significant number of evangelicals elected to major offices, GOP inaction in terms of policy priorities, DEM party liberalized even more after 2000. This has led many, including some of its earlier leaders and founders, to declare it a failure and seek alternative (nonpolitical) solutions to perceived cultural problems (see books by Cal Thomas, “Blinded by Might” and David Kuo, “Tempting Faith”). Also, consider GOP candidates. Evangelical influence?
Others point to GOP success (elections); evangelical voter mobilization for GOP, Supreme Court appointments, Democratic moderation in the 90 s, and a few minor victories here and there as evidence of success. II. Rise of the Religious Left? Less than 30% of Americans consider the Democratic party to be “friendly” towards religion. As with the GOP and Blacks, if the Dems could garner just 10 -20% more of the churchgoing folk, it would win major elections with ease. Howard Dean declared that the Dems must go after this vote by changing its rhetoric (Dean quotes). The Faith in Public Life Resource Center, began as a Democratic leadership conference call, is now a stand alone group with Dean’s mission in mind. A. Can it be successful? It’s going to be hard…Why? 1. Theological disunity or incohesion - Principle difference between the Religious Right and Left: The Religious Right believes in objectively revealed Truth, the Religious Left does not. As a starting principle, the Religious Left accepts theologically the notion that Truth is not and can not be objectively known (except, perhaps, the tiny little group of evangelicals in it). If it is not objectively known and if everyone has their own version…
of it and if these versions must be equally weighted for pluralism’s sake (highest value), then how can a unified policy position, agenda, crusade ever be marked out? Pluralism trumps conviction and may leave the movement without a leg to stand on (NYT article). “We are a religious voice. ” Okay, what does that voice say? Uh, I don’t know, I don’t want to speak for anyone or impose my values on others or say that someone else is wrong or that I am right…The NCR is united around a common authority, the scriptures (or a God who speaks infallibly). What authority unites the RL? Indeed, a theological tenet of liberalism is the rejection of any common objective authority in theology. 2. #s ain’t good: the institutional structure (churches) that so helped the NCR get off the ground and stay in the air just isn’t there among the RL. Mainliners are not as liberal as their leaders and the # of churchgoing blacks is falling or joining white evangelical churches. 3. Tension with seculars in DEM leadership and among activists. Number of seculars, atheists, agnostic, and other unaffiliated has increased dramatically over the last 30 years (roughly doubled from 816, though some dispute here). % of seculars in DEM party activists considerably higher. Modern liberals may say: have we not always insisted that religion should not be our guide/motive in politics? 4. Lack of religious influence over political ideology (Kohut reports that 31% of people cite religious beliefs as connected to their political conservatism, 6% connect it with political liberalism). This is especially true on the non-cultural or social issues like welfare.
These have led many strategists to suggest that Dems “give up” on the “Sunday vote” and be careful to solidify the left’s most loyal and promising constituent groups (racial minorities, the unmarried, especially unmarried women, the lowest on the socio -economic ladder, and seculars, atheists, and other unaffiliated). Somewhat parallel situation between the GOP and blacks. B. Hope for it? Why? African-Americans – no significant sign of changing loyalties. This group is the second most likely to cite religious beliefs as a motivating factor for their political preferences. Mainliners are not necessarily a spent force in politics. They may be divided today politically (and theologically in terms of laity vs leadership), but they still represent a formidable potential religious political group with vast resources, a strong history of “social gospel” and political engagement, and an established institutional structure in place. Catholics are not firmly in the GOP camp, even traditional ones. Their support for the GOP can hardly be considered unconditional. They are relatively new supporters and may change; GOP support for policies out of accord with Rome may lead Catholics back home (War, social services, death penalty, etc. ).
4. Tiny evangelical left – Jim Wallis, Randall Balmer, Tony Campolo, The Sojourners Magazine. Main message: the evangelical political agenda ought not be limited to issues of reproductive or sexual immorality, but broadened to include issues of social justice. A broadened Biblicalpolitical agenda, they argue, is in greater harmony with the DEM party platform. III. The Culture War: (Colson quote). The culture war theory (James David Hunter) posits that America is (or soon will be) politically divided along theological lines featuring two “armies, ” one of the religiously orthodox/traditional and the other religiously liberal or irreligious. In 1992, at the GOP convention, Pat Buchanan famously said, “There is a culture war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as the Cold War itself. ” There is significant talk of new Red and Blue state divisions which are supposed to represent entirely different cultural environments manifesting itself in national elections. Is there a culture war going on in America?
A. No: Evidence – if theological orthodoxy mattered, black protestants would be at least moving in the direction of the GOP. Not happening. Most studies show that the masses are not politically polarized along theological lines except with respect to a few issues involving sexuality. Polarization does not go much beyond this (problem here, most of these studies distinguish between faith tradition, but not commitment level). Any movement we have seen in opposite directions has been slow. No reason to expect rapidity. Religion is important force over political behavior but continues to compete with other conventional factors for the vast majority of voters (income, race, gender, etc. ). There is much to divide people beyond religious orthodoxy. Perhaps some on the far left and right theologically are self-consciously engaged in a culture war, but most remain on sidelines concerned with other matters (evidence cited: static public opinion on culture war issues). B. Yes: “better” studies of masses (distinguishing between committed and non-committed adherents) shows polarizing movement along religious lines. Takes time. We definitely see polarizing among political elites (party activists, party platforms, groups, candidate rhetoric, officeholders, media). Expect a “trickle-down” effect. Salience of “social issues” relative to others has grown steadily more important to voters since the 1970 s; % of soldier party activists (evangelicals in GOP and secular or irreligious in DEM) grown tremendously. First goes parties, politicians, churches, groups, then masses. BP behavior more of a cultural distinctive rather than a religious-political conviction. Bigger question: Is this good for America?
Скачать презентацию religion and Politics Dr Troy Gibson I
433733825f185272c11e4773bbed43e1.ppt