11/25/2018 MADISON, JEFFERSON, AND MASON;THREE VERY DIFFERENT VIEWS ON RELIGION FOR A NEW AMERICA.Read NowMADISON, JEFFERSON, AND MASON; THREE VERY DIFFERENT VIEWS ON RELIGION FOR A NEW AMERICA. by Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. In the first installment of our "Sunday Thoughts" page, we explored George Mason's view of religious freedom and governance, a view that was closest to the Framers' consensus. We saw the importance Mason held for Christian forbearance and the role of Christianity in American life. For him, American society and social customs were inherently Christian in nature and based on Judeo-Christian moral presumptions. This reality was not to be denied in governmental design, but revered and utilized for society's benefit. But Mason's view, although the prevailing one, was by no means universally accepted. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, most notably, viewed the concept of religious freedom and its nexus with governance differently. For example, Madison did not place a great deal of importance upon Christianity as the guiding force in a republic. His greater quest was for equal standing for all, regardless of the observed religion. Madison's reasoning was based on the presumption that if there is a direct and intimate relationship between an individual and his Creator, a relationship not to be corrupted by the influence of the state, then there ought to be no room for the government to influence the person in regards to his or her religious beliefs. This prohibition, Madison argued, would not be limited to the selection or preference of a particular Christian sect, but applied equally to the selection of any religious belief, Christian or not. As it were, history gave us the opportunity to test whether Madison's more sterilized view of religious freedom in governance was the prevailing view. During the run-up to the nation's founding, Madison presented his version of religious freedom in the form of an amendment to Article 16 of the Virginia Bill of Rights on which Mason had worked. His version would strike out the words "Christian forbearance" from the religious freedom provision, but the delegates to the Convention would have none of it. Although the delegates to the Virginia Fifth Convention accepted some of Madison's additions, they held dear to Christianity, and the words "Christian forbearance" were ultimately retained. The person who was arguably the leading thinker and writer of the day, Thomas Jefferson, did not participate in the Fifth Convention's discussions as he was serving in Congress. Consequently, although he was aware of the results of the Fifth Virginia Convention, he was not nearly as familiar with its actual discussions and deliberations. Generally, Jefferson's primary concern was the condition of man. Jefferson's view on the immiscibility of religion and governance was even stricter than Madison's. For Jefferson, any interference with religious worship and liberty must be avoided. Jefferson was not only an ardent follower of natural law but also of the uncorrupted pursuit of truth. For as Jefferson articulated as one of his assumption in his Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, ". . . truth is great and will prevail if left to herself;. . . she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them." Clearly, Jefferson's scrubbing of governmental influence goes beyond the issue of religion and the belief in God. It goes to the matter of each man's pursuit of a greater truth. And if truth is to be sought free from obstructions, then government interference cannot be allowed. In this light, Jefferson would write within the substance of the Religious Freedom Bill, "That to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty." Despite the stated strictness of his position, Jefferson's call was not for a complete abstention from moral or ethical governance as he expressly allowed for interference in the beliefs of an individual "when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order." So, even though Jefferson advocated for strict avoidance of interference by government with the religious beliefs of men, neither one's religious beliefs nor conscience could be employed for the purposes of disrupting the safety of the citizenry or to disrupt the social order. In 1779, at least, Jefferson's focus was not on a complete separation of church and state, but rather on a prohibition of interference by government in the person's pursuit of truth; religious or otherwise. With these three diverging views, the stage was set for a colossal collision between giants, and the force that would induce the confrontation was yet another foundational American icon and the greatest orator of the day, Patrick Henry. But for that, we will have to wait until next week. Have a very Happy, Peaceful, and Blessed Thanksgiving Day. Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.
0 Comments
OUR NEW SUNDAY THOUGHTS PAGE. by Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. Welcome to our new "Sunday Thoughts" Page. The overarching goals for The Federalist Pages have been to explore our Constitution, to review our nation's constitutional history, and to visit the events of today in light of the original intent and interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. The chief underpinning of these concepts is our First Amendment right to freedom of religion. At The Federalist Pages, we believe that the framework the Framers constructed for us in Philadelphia was based on religious principles and presumptions. In the "Sunday Thoughts" page of The Federalist Pages, we explore these foundations, their meaning, and their implications to our society if they were being applied in a manner consistent with the Framers' intent. On our "Sunday Thoughts" segment, we will release weekly articles detailing concepts dealing with our religious freedom. What would our society look like in light of a more robust and open freedom to worship? Would it truly be more oppressive, or would it actually be more liberating? Is open worship, and worship during official functions an impediment or a benefit to a free and democratic society? And what did the Framers believe was the correct answer? We begin our exploration with a look into the thoughts of the Framers and leaders of the era regarding religious freedom and worship in their new nation. Many of us know about Thomas Jefferson's letter to the leaders of the Danbury Baptist Association where he described the now infamous wall of separation between church and state, and we will certainly explore that. However, to really get to the essence of what the Founders and Framers were considering for the new nation with regards to the freedom to worship, we have to go back further. There are fascinating expressions of the meaning and make-up of religious freedom leading back to the earliest days of our colonial times, but perhaps the best place to start is with the thoughts of men like John Adams, John Marshall, and George Mason. Men who were involved in the nation's creation and actually led the process forward. Perhaps the clearest indication of the Framers' vision for our nation's foundation as it relates to religious worship comes from the experiences of George Mason. During the run-up to the Revolutionary War, Virginia took steps to maintain communications and coordinate actions with its surrounding colonies against England. In 1774, Virginia engaged in the first of many Conventions manned by delegates from its various counties. With the reality of an impending secession from the Crown, Virginia assembled its Fifth Convention on May 6, 1776. This was the assembly that would declare Virginia's independence from England and replace the British flag with the colonial colors. Faced with the reality of independent rule, the Convention embarked on the creation of two key documents. The first was a constitution, which it ratified on June 29, 1776, and the second, the Virginia Bill of Rights, was adopted on June 12, 1776. It is this latter document that holds some of the key building blocks to America's eventual position on religious liberties.
concept confirms the manner in which members of society are to discharge that duty, namely through individual reason and conviction. That religious duty is an innately personal one, which is not imposed by force or violence, but by the omnipotent Creator. From this assertion springs the third concept: the state cannot punish or restrain a person based on religious beliefs except when such beliefs disturb peace, happiness, or safety.
Finally, there is the absolute requirement that all citizens of Virginia practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity. This concept of Christianity guiding the actions of the people is of seminal importance, and not merely because Christianity was the prevailing religion of the day. The reason Christianity, specifically, mustbe the principal religious force within a free society is because of the unique, central message that Christianity brought to the Jewish faith: the concept of loving service to one's neighbor stated, amongst other places, in the Gospel according to Mark: "You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind and with all your strength. . . . You must love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these. . . To love Him with all your heart, with all your understanding and strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself, this is far more important than any burnt offering or sacrifice." (Mk. 12:30-33) This concept of love and its inextricable ties to religious service is unique to Christianity. With the assertion that man's purpose includes loving those around him comes the responsibility of service to others. In a free society, unencumbered by external restraints, the selfish pursuit of a man's interest will push him inexorably toward amassing more possession and more power. Naturally, those with the greatest abilities will eventually tower over those with lesser ones and squander them with their overwhelming might. A pure republic respecting the unencumbered motivations and accomplishments of its citizens rightfully would allow these proclivities to proceed unchecked, unless its people were restricted by the Christian edict of loving others as they would love themselves. The people would then possess an inherent code of conduct not needing to be laid down by the Republic. It is through this prism of Christian forbearance that the actions and interventions of the Founders and the Framers need to be viewed. These men were working on the assumption that their society and social customs were inherently Christian in nature. Whether they advocated for religious freedom, rights of conscience, or separation of church and state, their testimonies and arguments were based on the precept that American society and the American people were inherently Christian and acted under the moral presumptions afforded by Christianity. This fundamental assumption regarding the color of American society at the time of its founding is the reason George Mason declared it the "mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity to each other," in Section 16 of the Virginia Bill of Rights. It is this view, as expressed by George Mason in the Virginia Bill of Rights that most closely reflects not only the intent the Framers had for their new nation, but also for where we ought to be today with regards to our own religious freedoms and public worship. In our next installment, we will explore James Madison's view and, eventually, Thomas Jefferson's, and discover why theirs, although eventually adopted by the twentieth century, progressive Supreme Court, conflicts with the original vision for our nation. Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
April 2021
Categories |