To Bigotry No Sanction
Dane Shelly Friday, 26 March 2004
Because religion has played a role in many of the world's recent conflicts, some people now argue that, in order to reduce religious violence, we must dilute religion. If religious people didn't care so much about their religion, the thinking goes, then they wouldn't think it worth fighting over. Jonathan Rauch, for example, writing in the Atlantic Monthly, applauds the rise of what he calls "apatheism," the "disinclination to care all that much about one's own religion, and an even stronger disinclination to care about other people's...."[1] This trend is worth celebrating, he says, because religion remains the "most divisive and volatile of social forces."
If only the world stopped caring about religion, the world would be a safer place? Perhaps. But this seems unlikely; we should not pin our hopes for world peace on the sudden apathy of the billions of religious people of the world.
What Rauch fails to take into account is America's own history of religious tolerance — and the fact that most of the pioneers of religious freedom were deeply religious people. Indeed, when tracing the history of religious freedom in America, one notices that it was religious leaders such as Roger Williams and William Penn who argued first for what they called "freedom of conscience." It was their strong religious convictions that convinced them that all men should be free to believe what seems most reasonable to them.
Later, John Locke would argue that, for this reason, church and state should be kept separate. Founding Fathers such as Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were indebted to Williams, Penn, and Locke for their ideas of freedom of conscience, which would be incorporated into the First Amendment of the Constitution, the world's first legal guarantee of its kind.
Roger Williams
When Roger Williams surveyed the battlefields of the religious wars of Europe he was convinced that God could not approve of violence done in His name. In his Plea for Religious Liberty, Williams' first priority was to disabuse all who would believe differently: "[T]he blood of so many hundred thousand souls of Protestants and Papists, spilt in the wars of present and former ages, for their respective consciences, is not required nor accepted by Jesus Christ the Prince of Peace."[2] How can it be possible that both sides of the war claim the favor of God? For Williams, any religion that was spread by force must be false, for "indeed that religion cannot be true which needs such instruments of violence to uphold it so."
Roger Williams was a well respected clergyman when he sailed to the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1630. He soon accepted an invitation to work as assistant pastor in a separatist church in Salem. As an outspoken advocate for the rights of local Indians, as well as a persistent critic of any affiliation with the Church of England, Williams soon outstayed his welcome. In 1635, he was banished from the colony and lived with friendly Indians until he moved to Providence to start his own colony.
Roger Williams knew, from experience, the value of the freedom of conscience. As a man of strong religious convictions, he believed that the State had no authority in what he called "soul liberty." When he devised his form of government, Williams wanted his colony to be a haven for all who were "distressed in conscience." The fact that Rhode Island would soon have large populations of Quakers, Jews, and Catholics demonstrates the success of his mission.
In 1663 the colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations secured a charter which was much more liberal than that of any of the other colonies. It declared that religious freedom was to be a foundational principle for Rhode Island:
they have ffreely declared, that it is much on their hearts (if they may be permitted), to hold forth a livlie experiment, that a most flourishing civill state may stand and best bee maintained, and that among our English subjects, with a full libertie in religious concernements; and that true pietye rightly grounded upon gospell principles, will give the best and greatest security to sovereignetye, and will lay in the hearts of men the strongest obligations to true loyalty.[3]
For Roger Williams and the people of Rhode Island, even after witnessing the horrors of religious wars, the key to peace was not to forget religion. Instead, religion—as long as it is not tempted with the power of the sword—will be a force for peace in society. The Charter goes on to establish that, so long as one does not disturb the peace or break civil laws, anyone can practice religion according to his conscience. This was truly an innovative idea; one which would be built upon by another man who founded his own colony, William Penn.
William Penn
William Penn, probably the world's most famous Quaker, was one of the first American heroes of religious freedom. He had the unique opportunity to not only advocate religious freedom in theory, but to implement it in his own colony. Because William Penn made freedom of conscience a foundational principle in the governing of Pennsylvania, immigrants from many countries and sects were attracted to his colony. Indeed, one historian has called Pennsylvania "America's first great melting pot." Voltaire went one step further and called it a "terrestial utopia."
Perhaps this is going too far, because William Penn did not believe in total religious freedom or total separation of church and state (for example, he made belief in God a test for all officeholders). Still, for his era he had an advanced appreciation for freedom of conscience—that all may believe in their own religion and need not fear the wrath of an intolerant government. This was a giant leap forward in the march towards religious freedom.
Penn's contributions to religious freedom are twofold. First, he argued that conscience belonged to the individual and could only be judged by God. It is wrong (and impossible) to force someone to believe something they don't. Indeed, suppression of dissenters would only harm the church, because "Force may make an hypocrite; 'tis faith grounded upon knowledge that makes a Christian." Instead of securing fidelity to the church, persecution allows hypocrisy and falsehood to gain a foothold.
Second, he made natural rights the foundation of the government of his new colony, Pennsylvania. William Penn believed that some laws were man-made, and therefore alterable, and others were natural or divine. The natural laws, such as freedom of conscience, could never be abrogated, and civil laws were illegitimate if they attempted to limit them. He therefore instituted a representative form of government in Pennsylvania, believing that natural rights would be best protected when mutual consent and self-interest were its guardians. This depended, of course, on freedom of conscience, because each person must be free to speak their minds. Penn first published his Frame of Government in 1682, outlining the rights of the citizens and the structure of the government of Pennsylvania. The Frame was amended twice within 20 years—a testament to Penn's commitment to the consent of the governed.
The work of Roger Williams and William Penn to ensure the freedom of conscience was the first major step towards the religious freedom enshrined in the First Amendment. It was John Locke, however, who took those ideas and formulated a political theory which would most effectively protect freedom of conscience.
John Locke
Locke's contribution to religious freedom is that he clearly delineated the separate functions of civil government and religion. His argument was based upon two basic premises: first that the state could only interfere in specific civil offenses, and second, that matters of conscience must be left to the individual. This argument for the separation of church and state as a necessary guarantee of freedom of conscience was essential to the religious freedom of the Founding Fathers.
For Locke, the consummate contract theorist, civil government was a voluntary association, whose role was simple: to procure "civil interests" such as life, liberty, and property. When the government stepped outside its jurisdiction to dictate matters of faith, it was acting improperly. It seemed obvious to Locke that "the care of souls cannot belong to the civil magistrate, because his power consists only in outward force; but true and saving religion consists in the inward persuasion of the mind, without which nothing can be acceptable to God."[4] The magistrate may force a heretic to verbally recant, but he could never truly change one's convictions.
In his famous Letter Concerning Toleration he makes clear his belief that matters of religion must be decided by the individual conscience. All the life and power of true religion consist in the inward and full persuasion of the mind; and faith is not faith without believing. For Locke, not only was the commonwealth a voluntary association—so was the church. For him, a church was a voluntary society of men, joining themselves together of their own accord for the public worshipping of God in such manner as they judge acceptable to Him, and effectual to the salvation of their souls.
For Locke, then, there was never an occasion to use violence in the name of religion. The government had no business interfering in religious affairs and the church could never force conformity in belief. But Locke was no universalist. He was a devout Christian who nevertheless believed that the only weapons at the disposal of the church were spiritual ones.
Locke's final contribution to religious freedom was his extension of civil rights to members of all religions. Indeed, he was a true and consistent advocate of religious freedom, arguing, that "if we may openly speak the truth, and as one becomes one man to another, neither Pagan nor Mahumetan, nor Jew, ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the commonwealth, because of his religion. The Gospel commands no such thing..."
While both Roger Williams and William Penn had freedom of conscience in their colonies—anyone could live there free of government molestation—neither allowed non-Christians to hold public office. It was the influence of Locke and other Enlightenment thinkers who first argued that civil rights, and therefore public office, should have no religious test. Locke's influence is obvious upon Founding Fathers such as Jefferson and Washington and we can see his insistence on the separation of civil government and religion mirrored in the First Amendment.
Thomas Jefferson
Although the colonies declared independence in 1776, the Constitution would not be ratified until 1787. In that 11-year span, Thomas Jefferson worked tirelessly for religious freedom. Like Locke, Jefferson believed that civil government and the church were two distinct entities, which must be kept separate for the benefit of both. The battleground upon which he fought was his home state, Virginia. Since 1607, the Anglican Church was the established church in Virginia, and many Anglicans had no desire to change this. The dissenting denominations—Baptists, Presbyterians, etc.—were attracting growing numbers and resented the privileged place given to the Anglican Church. Jefferson, a member of no church, took up the cause of disestablishment, which he believed to be an important part of religious freedom.
The battle over religious establishment was intense. Some people proposed a compromise: Christianity, not a single denomination, would become the established religion. Patrick Henry, John Marshall, and Richard Henry Lee were a few of the prominent statesmen who supported recognizing Christianity (if not Anglicanism, specifically) as the "established Religion of the Commonwealth." But this was not good enough for Thomas Jefferson. If Virginia can today establish Christianity, what prevents it from tomorrow establishing Judaism? No, for Jefferson, the only solution was to withhold the state's imprimatur from every religion.
Finally, in 1786, the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom became the law of the land. In it, Locke's influence on Jefferson is recognizable. Jefferson echoes Locke's liberal views when he writes, "our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry."[5] If civil government is a voluntary association formed for the purpose of civil matters, religious affiliation should not matter. Also, Jefferson relies on Locke's view of church as another voluntary association. He argues in the Virginia Statute that since religion is voluntary, "to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical." Indeed, for Jefferson religious establishment was the beginning of tyranny. When he died, Jefferson cited the Virginia Statute as one of his three most important legacies. In that it served as a model for the First Amendment, it should be viewed as one of America's greatest accomplishments.
George Washington
George Washington is known as the father of our country, but he was a leader not a philosopher. He did what he thought was best, and believed in 'simple truths.' His contribution to religious freedom, then, was not intellectual. But as the most revered man in the new republic, his support of religious freedom set an admirable precedent, from which it would have been impossible for his successors to wander. Just a few years after the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was passed, the new President was given an opportunity to make a public statement about the importance of religious freedom in the infant nation.
Shortly after his inauguration, Washington traveled to Newport, Rhode Island. On this trip the local Jewish congregation, led by Moses Seixas, expressed its admiration for Washington's character and his leadership of the nation. Ever the gentleman, President Washington wrote back to thank them for their generous support. In it, he writes that mere religious toleration is not enough, "as if it were to be conferred by one class of people on another." Instead all are assumed to be equal under the law. Because of the separation of church and state, civil rights would never be abrogated for religious reasons. "For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support."[6]
The First Amendment and Faith
Perhaps no 16 words have sparked so much admiration—or controversy. The First Amendment has just one sentence pertaining to religion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." But it is clear that the Founding Fathers understood its importance. Richard Henry Lee of Virginia described it as a statement "for ages and nations yet unborn." Truly, its legacy is the society in which we live—free to believe what we choose, to respond freely to the dictates of religious conscience.
The First Amendment's two clauses concerning religion, the Free Exercise clause and the Establishment clause, reflect two aspects of religious freedom that are the legacy of Williams, Penn, and Locke, among others—the right to practice one's religion freely, and the separation of church and state. Today religious freedom is so ingrained within American culture that it is easy to forget that during the formation of our nation religious freedom was neither inevitable nor popular. It was great leaders like Roger Williams and William Penn who laid the foundation for our first freedom—the freedom of conscience.
Upon this foundation, the Founding Fathers formed a system of government for the union that, while not perfect, was "more perfect" than history had previously known. And they did this not by relying on "apatheistic" religion but by understanding the nature of real religion—faith embraced freely.
1. Jonathan Rauch. "Let it Be." The Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 291, No. 4. May 2003.
2. Roger Williams. A Plea for Religious Liberty. 1644. This document, as well as many other classic religious freedom texts, is archived at the Religious Freedom page at http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/.
3. Charter of Rhode Island and the Providence Plantations. 1663. This document is archived at the Avalon Project, hosted by Yale Law School, which has a large collection of primary sources. It can be found at http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/avalon.htm.
4. John Locke. A Letter Concerning Toleration. 1689. Archived at the Religious Freedom page at http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/.
5. Thomas Jefferson. Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. 1786. Archived at the Religious Freedom page.
6. George Washington. Letter to Moses Seixas. 18 August 1790. Archived at http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/presidency/hebrew/hebrew2.html.