If you missed part 1 check it out here:
https://hive.blog/philosophy/@psg3196/observations-on-sex-and-religion-religion-and-america-part-1
Now all of this happened before the United States existed. Every so often debates come up in regards to the founding of our country. The term "Christian Nation" gets thrown about quite a bit. The validity of the statement depends on what you mean by the term. If you mean that christianity is the predominant religion in the country then I would say yes, that is a fair statement. If you mean that our founding fathers created this country to be some sort of utopia that is subject to christian rules then you couldn't be more incorrect. I honestly don't even know what that would look like. There are so many denominations of christianity I don't think they could all find a universal viewpoint on anything to where they would be able to run something. It would turn into some state run church that would be exactly like the church they ran from to come here in the first place.
At one point all but 3 of the of the colonies forced colonists to pay taxes to support religion. Some of those colonies had an official church while others did not and money could be directed towards whatever church they chose. The 3 colonies that did not force it were Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. This along with the aforementioned rule about only protestants being allowed to hold public office started to really rile some people and get them upset. Later when the constitution was written you see the fallout of this practice in Article VI Clause 3:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Article VI Clause III
U.S. Constitution
This leads us to the separation of church and state argument. Every so often someone will pop up on the internet and claim there is no separation of church and state because it's not in the constitution. That specific verbiage does not appear in the constitution they are correct about that. However it does appear in many other documents. So we are going to look at some quotes, one of which is as blatant as it can be.
Before I get into the Bill of Rights I want to look at some documents I see as a precursor to the First Amendment. In Virginia you had Thomas Jefferson, James Madision, and Patrick Henry. Henry is of course famous for the declaration of,"Give me liberty or give me death!" This is from a speech at the Second Virginia Convention in 1775. Of course Thomas Jefferson wrote the U.S. Constitution and James Madison is credited with authoring the first 10 Bill of Rights. Thomas Jefferson wrote a statute for religious freedom in 1777. It was introduced in 1779 but it didn't go anywhere and not much attention was paid to it. That all changed in 1784 when the subject of funding came up. Patrick Henry wanted to establish some provisions for teachers of christianity. James Madison was against it and eventually won out. He brought back up Jefferson's old statute as an alternative. It was at this time the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was introduced once again but this time it passed in 1786. Below you can read the entire statute in it's entirety:
An act for establishing religious Freedom.
Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;
That all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do,
That the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time;
That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions, which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical;
That even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the Ministry those temporary rewards, which, proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labor's for the instruction of mankind;
That our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry,
That therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages, to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right,
That it tends only to corrupt the principles of that very Religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments those who will externally profess and conform to it;
That though indeed, these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way;
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 because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;
That it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order;
And finally, that Truth is great, and will prevail if left to herself, that 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:
Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened 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. And though we well know that this Assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of Legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare that the rights hereby asserted, are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.
-Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom
January 16,1786
I'm going to end it here for the day with the statute then pick up with the rest on Friday and finish off this part before moving to the next on Monday! Don't forget to click that upvote and feel free to reblog as well!