The unread rebuttal

Note: One of my buddy Mike makes posts on his facebook using the notes option. One time he accidently posted an email that wasn't entirely accurate. (Heaven forbid! I'm sure none of us have ever done that.) And some one kept posting post after post of, "Did you know...Did you know..." So I responded with the folliwing which was waaaaaaay to long to post as a response so I posted it hear instead. Basically I'm ditching the original article (which wasn't nearly as innacurate as it was being made out to be, but I don't want to go point for point, as it's difficult to win anyone that way, they just get confused. So instead I tried to set down a historical narrative.) It is too long but, I've worked on it for an hour and I'm done.

Mike, buddy, always love your posts. By the way did you mean to put 17 credits instead of 27 credits? If you’re taking 27 credits man, you are my hero. Well even if you’re taking 17 credits you’re my hero. I did that once, the first semester right after my mission when I didn’t have a life and I was still in freakin’ work-a-holic mode… and I still almost died. So best of luck to you.

Well, allow me to add my two cents to this post. First, I think that the post, and the responses to the post, mistreat the overall issue of religious freedom. Certainly the engravings on a building, in my humble view, do not necessarily tell us the role which religion ought to play in United States of America nor the role it played in its past.

I understand why such letters such as this have become battling points. It’s the great debate of which historical narrative is right. In one corner you have the modern evangelical movement which states that this country was founded as a perpetual Christian nation, and in the other corner you get modern ACLU and or other groups who say that this nation was founded on the principle of separation of church and state. I suggest that both of these histories are overly simplistic and create a false nostalgia from both groups.

Both beliefs are misleading because frankly, whether either side wants to admit it, we weren’t founded on either of those principles. The case could be made that the Massachusetts Bay colony was founded as a Christian nation, and the case could also be made that Rhode Island was founded on the separation of church and state.

However, in both the revolutionary war and the constitutional convention, the issue of religion was well eclipsed by concerns which united the country which were primary economic: Frustration with British control over US ports and taxation without representation in the revolutionary war and interstate commerce and the printing of a national currency in the constitutional convention.

Understanding that our founders didn’t hold their own Council of Nicaea explains two things. First, it explains the ambiguity as both sides feverishly search to prove how the country was founded. Second, it shows that the dialogue on religious freedom in the early 19th century was much different than the dialogue we have today, and in my opinion much of the ambiguity should prove that.

There was a little stir between Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry at the end of the 18th century, but this is often very misunderstood and gets Jefferson labeled anti-Christian or anti-religious. Most of us today would probably agree with Jefferson’s position. Patrick Henry wanted to use taxes to fund the local church as had been practiced in Europe for centuries, Jefferson and Madison both considered this an abuse of power. (Me too)

Jefferson’s position can be best summed up by a bill he penned in 1779 called the Bill for Religious Freedom which states, “No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”

Ok, well is anybody against that? I’m not. But did Jefferson, who believed in a separation wall between church (an institution of religion) and state (an institution of force) feel there needed to be a separation of religion and state?

That case is much more difficult to make. On some occasions Jefferson seemed more indifferent, like in his famous letters to the Danbury Baptist association he wrote, “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
Today, many of us who feel that our religious rights are being taken by the courts use this quote in our defense. Not in contradiction for what Jefferson stood for, but in harmony. Jefferson stood for religious freedom. His big bone with religion was that it shouldn’t be state sponsored, but Jefferson showed nowhere near the antagonism of religion as the modern secular movement.

In fact in public office Jefferson invoked God and religion in many of his most famous works and speeches. The most famous of course would be the Declaration and Jefferson’s second inaugural address.

When arguing against slavery (an irony since he was a slave owner) Jefferson argued, “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?” (Notes on the State of Virginia QXVIII)

In summary, though I certainly don’t believe that the United States was founded as a Christian nation (or in other words I don’t believe that our founders put a “Christians only” sign at the metaphoric front door) there certainly isn’t any proof that any of our founding fathers were anywhere near antagonistic enough religion to demand that the end of school prayer on a national level, and then attempt to even end prayers before football games. The Jefferson I know would say something like, ““The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

Amen brotha! Even if you may are a Unitarian.

Jason Bentley is just a punk college kid who is attending Brigham Young University.