by jimwalton » Mon Dec 05, 2016 2:04 pm
Thank you for your insights. It's a pleasure to dialogue with you. I'm well aware that the Founding Fathers were more deists than Christians. On a careful reading of what I wrote, you'll notice I never used the term "Christian," but only "religious," which they were.
As far as Thomas Jefferson is concerned, I have read tales of his Bible where he removed sections not to his liking, so I'm aware of that as well. Nor did I contend that Lincoln was a Founding Father. You'll notice again, with a more careful reading of my post, that I used him as an example of religious expression in the course of official duties, a fairly irrefutable claim. I also agree that the ideals enshrined in the Constitution are more from Enlightenment philosophy and philoso-political writings of the day, not particularly from the Old and New Testaments. (Although I would still argue that reference to a "Creator" in the preamble is a reference to a spiritual being, a deity, if you will, especially since it is capitalized.) I never made a claim to the contrary. My only claim, as you can read, is the acceptance of expressing religious beliefs in the course of official activity. I fear that in your haste to refute you made some false assumptions and jumped to some unwarranted conclusions. Perhaps on seeing the label as "Christian evangelical" your mind went to a place that my post never took you.
I also agree that in the modern era Christian evangelicals strove to overreach appropriate interpretations, in their own haste to influence public policy.
The real point of discussion is your concluding sentence: "The right enumerate in the First is, and was always meant to, enshrine a right to freedom from religion, not merely freedom of religion." It was never a statement intended to restrict religious expression, but exactly the opposite: to guarantee rights of expression in speech, press, religion and assembly. Since the terms are bracketed together in the same category, we can't claim a right to freedom from religion any more than we can claim that the drafters' intent was to guarantee freedom from the press, speech, and assembly. Jefferson, in his letter to the Danbury church, affirmed that the purpose was to prevent establishment and to protect free exercise, whether in official capacity or not. In context, Jefferson is stating that the government CANNOT infringe upon religious liberty. There is nowhere in any founding document that states that religious ideals, principles, expression, or people are to be restricted from any influence within the political system. In fact, if one were to do a study of the Founding Fathers regarding their religious beliefs and ITS influence on government, one would find that their attitudes were the exact opposite of the modern day understanding.
In Emerson v. Board of Education (1947), the Supreme Court made clear what the point is: "Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another." There is no expression either in the amendment or its legal interpretations that the amendment was intended to forbid the free expression of religious beliefs, even in an official capacity, as long as that expression cannot be construed as intending to pass a law of religious establishment or preference. Even the Lemon test only speaks of purely religious agendas, with a principal effect of advancing or inhibiting religion fostering excessive governmental entanglement. Even these don't prohibit the free expression of religion, which is what the amendment was designed to ensure.