Roll Over, Thomas Jefferson

[Brown]

Thomas Jefferson's self-composed epitaph lists what he believed to be his greatest accomplishments (but surprisingly mentions nothing about his service as the third president of the United States):

Here was buried
Thomas Jefferson
Author of the Declaration of American Independence
of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom
& Father of the University of Virginia

One of Jefferson's greatest achievements, in his view, was the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, which has been widely heralded as a masterpiece.

Part I is a preamble setting forth the reasons for the statute. After noting that the Almighty Himself does not coerce religious belief, the preamble asserts that men who presume to do so inflict a list of evils on others: hypocrisy, meanness, false religion, tyranny. In marked contrast to arguments put forth this very day before the United States Supreme Court, that our rights derive from specific religious principles, the preamble asserts a "natural rights" position:

[O]ur civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry....

Part II is the actual statute itself:

Be it enacted by the 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 opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

Part III includes an interesting statement of legislative intent. It recognizes that no current legislature can irrevocably bind any future legislature,

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.

Incredibly, a Virginia legislator wants to tinker with one of Jefferson's greatest works. From the Roanoke Times:

[Bill] Carrico, R-Grayson County, said the state's stifling of religious expression justifies clarification of guarantees rooted in the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, which was written by Thomas Jefferson in 1786. "America was founded on Christian beliefs," Carrico said during Tuesday's floor debate on his resolution. "Christianity is the majority faith in this country, and yet because the minority has said, 'I'm offended,' we are being told to keep silent."

Carrico is apparently upset about an event that occurred in 1998, when he appeared before an assembly of schoolchildren in the uniform of a Virginia State Trooper and told a Bible story. He received a rebuke from his supervisor. Carrico's resolution has passed the House, but still has many procedural hurdles before it can become law.

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

The framers of the constitution, and especially Jefferson saw the tyranny that religion imposes on the common man. I'll never understand why the religious right insists on imposing their world-view on everyone.

If their religion is so powerful and omnipotent, wouldn't there be just a smidgen of proof?

Charlie (but ya gotta have faith) Monoxide

 

[hgc]

Man with badge of state power and gun preaches bible to school children. That's amazing. Even more so that he doesn't know what's wrong with that. My question is why don't these people think that preaching in church is enough? Well, I know that they are compelled to preach the gospel to save souls, but can't there isn't enough opportunity to do it outside government institutions and functions?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Brown, your posts are one of the primary reasons I enjoy this board, and this one is an excellent example why.

(I do miss George Carlin though.)

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

hgc,
Fanaticism knows no boarders , religious, political, racial.
The difference between Jerry Falwell and Bin Ladin is mainly that old Jerr doesn't kill people.

The fallacious position is clear to all around the fanatic but they don't see it. They are built from a common stock and that is, they believe that all should live according to Their personal view.

Not only do they not value a different view, they think that all who disagree with their outlook are blasphemers, infidels, going to hell...
The fundies, be they in Iraq or the US believe that all segments of society should be subject to the particular dogma they ascribe to.
You cannot dissuade, you cannot reason, you may offer a library of facts and history , it doesn't matter.

The framers DID recognize this . Just as Madison said , We must protect ourselves from the tyranny of the majority. Clearer vision then most.

 

[CFLarsen]

Brown, your posts are one of the primary reasons I enjoy this board, and this one is an excellent example why.

Yeah, he should write something for...a certain monthly magazine....

 

[Silicon]

I second Regnad.

(about the intelligence of the posts, not necessarily a need to see your George Carlin picture.)

 

[Brown]

The framers DID recognize this . Just as Madison said , We must protect ourselves from the tyranny of the majority. Clearer vision then most.

Leaving aside the question of whether Jefferson was a "framer," he most certainly did foresee that when those in authority assert religious grounds in their official capacities, there is cause for concern. Jefferson, speaking through the Virginia Statute, uses the example of a civil magistrate, who bends his decisions to his religious beliefs:

[T]o 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 judgement; and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own....

When those in power base their actions on religious belief (which Jefferson calls "opinion"), the effect is a decrease in religious liberty, not an increase. Jefferson aptly calls such activity "impious presumption," in that those who are in power and who take the liberty of claiming to speak on behalf of the Almighty will--literally--take the liberty of others by endeavoring to impose their religious opinions.

Jefferson further makes the point that many of today's government pious overlook, when they speak of the beliefs of the majority: It is a deprivation of liberty to make one support religious endeavors with which one agrees. Instead, each individual should decide which religious endeavor he will support:

[T]o 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....(emphasis mine)

 

[corplinx]

Carrico used a personal experience to explain the need for such language. He said he was rebuked after using the Old Testament story of David and Goliath to make a point during a pre-prom assembly seven years ago at Grayson County High School. A complaint was lodged with his supervisor and the American Civil Liberties Union, Carrico said.

"I was told, 'As a state trooper, you have crossed the line - because you wore a uniform that displays the state of Virginia - of separation of church of state,'" Carrico said.

Is that the real story? Is he overreacting to getting unnecessarily spanked years before?

 

[KillerBob]

"America was founded on Christian beliefs,"

One of the more ironic quotes I've seen in a while.

This guy wants to change legislation that specifically says the opposite of the above quote and was actually written by a founding father.

How the hell can someone say that with a straight face?

 

[Brown]

While we're on the subject of religious freedom in Virginia, here's a story from CNN and AP (emphasis mine):

Parents challenge weekly Bible classes

When Heather and Logan Ward's son entered public kindergarten this fall, they were shocked to discover that pupils were taken from class to a nearby church for weekly Bible lessons.
...
Now the Wards and other parents are asking the school board to eliminate or modify the program, which shuttles first-, second- and third-graders to churches during class time for voluntary half-hour Christian lessons and activities.

This practice of taking children to church on school time was instituted in 1929, and has stayed on in some Virginia schools as a "traditition." Of course, challenges to tradition are never well-received, no matter how foolish the traditions are:

But the would-be reformers have run into staunch resistance. More than 400 people showed up to weigh in on the issue at a contentious school board meeting in December, and more than 1,000 signed a petition urging the school board to keep the classes.

The six-member school board is scheduled to decide the issue Monday.

Jack Hinton, president of the local private group that offers the lessons, attributes the opposition to a small minority, many of them newcomers to the valley. Without religious classes, he said, "kids get into trouble and have no moral structure on which to combat drugs, sex, pornography and all that."
...
"The people in those communities still have strong Christian faith and want their children to learn this," said JoAnne Shirley, state director of Weekday Religious Education, the private group that offers the lessons.

There it is again: it's the same old song about the minority dictating to the majority on the matter of morals. Most people want a Bible-based education for their kiddies (or, as the implication seems to be, all right-thinking people want it), and those in the minority are trying to interfere. Not only that, many of these complainers are outsiders, who chose to move into the region and now rudely insist upon telling long-standing resident families what to do.

Actually, many of the complainers are not outsiders at all:

But many opponents are Staunton natives. They argue that children who opt out are stigmatized and have little to do while their classmates are in Bible classes, taking away precious time for academics in the age of standardized testing.
...
"Christians don't have a monopoly on morality," says Renee Staton, a Staunton native whose husband is Jewish.

 

[Brown]

Is that the real story? Is he overreacting to getting unnecessarily spanked years before?

The Roanoke Times ran this story about Carrico:

"I have no ill intent toward any other beliefs with this legislation," Carrico told his fellow delegates. "However, I'm tired of hearing that when you walk into a school or walk onto public property that you cannot profess your beliefs because you may offend someone else."

Carrico, 43, heard that himself seven years ago, when his Virginia State Police supervisor rebuked him for invoking religion during a presentation to students at Grayson County High School. Putting on a uniform "didn't change my religious belief and it didn't change the way I felt," Carrico said. And Virginia's constitution should protect someone in similar circumstances, he concluded.

The whole business stinks. This legislator proposes to change one of the greatest documents ever composed, not because his constitutents are beset with a serious problem, but because he personally felt insulted when he was disciplined by his superior officer for doing something that any law enforcement officer ought to know is improper. There is nothing in the story to indicate that he was docked pay, transferred, demoted, fired or otherwise financially punished for his actions. But apparently his feelings were hurt really bad when his superior officer told him he was wrong to do what he did, and that is prompting him to push for amendment of Thomas Jefferson's 1786 Statute of Religious Freedom.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

"I have no ill intent toward any other beliefs with this legislation," Carrico told his fellow delegates. "However, I'm tired of hearing..."

Oh, boo-frickety-hoo.

 

[hgc]

... Carrico's resolution has passed the House, but still has many procedural hurdles before it can become law.

OK, all this stuff about Carrico's personal affrontery that his religion isn't State Religion is somewhat shocking, but he's just one dude. What freaks me out is that this man's tirade has passed in the House of Delegates! I know the chamber has a big Republican majority, but I guess I still can't believe that they would go for something so blatantly theocratic. More than ever, the assault on the "activist" courts is the long-term political campaign for theocracy. Where is the religious movement for not dirtying up your faith with political entanglements.

 

[fishbob]

Brown:

Part III includes an interesting statement of legislative intent. It recognizes that no current legislature can irrevocably bind any future legislature,

Did I misunderstand this? Should it not be something like 'no current legislature can screw with the natural rights established by a previous legislature'??

And in regards to Carrico's whining, I believe Regnad's response is most appropriate.

 

[Brown]

Brown: Did I misunderstand this? Should it not be something like 'no current legislature can screw with the natural rights established by a previous legislature'??

The concept of natural rights isn't discussed much today, and I'm not sure why.

The signers of the Declaration of Independence and the framers of the Constitution subscribed to the notion of natural rights, which was, at the time, a fairly radical notion. The idea of natural rights had a long history, but its modern application was developed by John Locke (among others). The Declaration of Independence uses natural rights as one of its bases for separation.

The most famous assertion in the Declaration is an assertion of natural rights: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." This is not, as some today argue, a statement of religious belief. The "Creator" is not necessarily the God of the Bible.

The Declaration continues: "that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." It is important to note that the signers asserted that governments derive their power NOT from any divine authority, but from the consent of the governed. Furthermore, is the right of the people, not the right of divine authority, to change the form of government.

This was in stark contrast to the principles of English monarchy, which held that (1) the King ruled by divine right and (2) rights came from the King.

The notion of the Declaration was that natural rights do not come from a king or from legislation or from any other instrument of law. Instead, the people naturally have these rights. The rights exist on their own, they are not granted by any higher body. Accordingly, the higher body cannot buy, sell or take away these rights at a whim... and this concept was embodied in the Declaration's famous term, "unalienable rights."

The listed grievances in the Declaration are indicative of blatant denials of rights, or infringement of rights based upon whim rather than reason.

The First Amendment to the Constitution is likewise based upon the concept of natural rights. The First Amendment does NOT begin with "Citizens shall have the rights...." Instead, the First Amendment ASSUMES that the enumerated rights exist, and says that the federal law-making body must not infringe them: "Congress shall make no law respecting...."

So, getting back to the original question...

The Statute does not purport to create the rights of religious liberty. Instead, it purports to protect those rights that already naturally exist. The Statute specifically recites a legislative finding that the things being protected are natural rights. In effect, Part III of the Statute is a warning to future legislatures. In effect, the warning is something like this:

"We recognize the possibility that someday--perhaps when the current members of the assembly are dead and gone--that a future legislature will consider repealing or restricting the operation of this Statute. Even though that future legislature is permitted to repeal, amend and adopt legislation, repealing or restricting the operation of this Statute will not repeal or restrict the natural rights of the citizens. If you mess with this Statute, you are venturing into tyranny."

 

[Brown]

I used to test Boy Scouts who wanted to attain the Law Merit badge. (I decided to have no further dealings with the Scouts when that organization started to assert that some religious beliefs were right and moral, and others were inherently wrong and immoral.)

The first question for the Scouts to answer was, and still is, "Define 'law.' Tell some of its sources." The Scouts had given candidates a small booklet to help them research the answers to the questions, and this booklet (the version that I saw, anyway, which was published in the 1960s, I think) included a discussion of natural rights and their importance to the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the framers of the Constitution.

In connection with this first question, I would ask the candidate, "What is the difference between 'law' and 'justice?'" A typical response was to equate the two concepts, but I would follow up with "Can a law ever be unjust?"

 

[Brown]

Originally posted by me
This practice of taking children to church on school time was instituted in 1929, and has stayed on in some Virginia schools as a "traditition."

According to the Staunton News Leader, the Staunton School Board reviewed this program on February 14, and decided to keep it... apparently as is. (Here is a shorter version of the story from CNN and AP.)

One of the school board members, the Rev. Edward Scott, pastor of Allen Chapel AME Church, urged that the Weekday Religious Education (WRE) program be moved to after-school time. "I think WRE is wrong for our school children," Scott said. "It belongs in the homes and in the churches."

The school board disagreed.

The board did, however, vote to provide an "enriching curriculum" for those children who opt out of the WRE program. The board also decided to re-examine the program in a year.

The text of the adopted resolution can be found here.

There's a bunch of really fishy things here. First of all, the WRE program is an "opt-out" program, which is suspect in itself, because it implies official approval of the program. (I note that in the recent Pledge case, however, that Justices Rehnquist, O'Connor and Thomas indicated that opting out can solve constitutional difficulties associated with the words "under God" in the official declaration of patriotic loyalty.) One of the board members seemed to suggest that official approval from the board was somehow necessary in order to have religious education: "My conscience tells me this community needs this program, and we need to keep it."

Second, holding WRE during class time inherently amplifies peer pressure, dislike and alienation among students. When I was in second and third grades, I knew a LOT of students who would LOVE to participate in studies of subjects other than what was taught in school. In school, you had to solve arithmetic problems, write sentences, demonstrate good handwriting, read aloud, stand up in front of the class, pay attention, memorize math tables.... Given a chance where you could attend a class where you didn't have to do any of those things, many students would love it... and those students who "opted out" would be treated like those classmates who would remind the teacher that she had forgotten to assign homework.

Third, why NOT adopt Rev. Scott's proposal and hold religious education as an optional after-school activity? Wouldn't that resolve most of the legal questions, avoid the problems associated with studying the question, eliminate the red tape associated with keeping track of which students have been released and which haven't, and moot the matter of providing unreleased students with meaningful educational opportunities?

Fourth, anybody want to take a bet about what meaningful educational opportunities will be provided to unreleased students? I suspect that the subject matter being offered will not be sufficiently interesting or valuable to make kids or parents want to abandon Bible study. Look for it to be a "make-work" program with little benefit to those who opt out. After all, we don't want the unreleased students to have an educational advantage over the released students, do we?

 

[varwoche]

Now the Wards and other parents are asking the school board to eliminate or modify the program, which shuttles first-, second- and third-graders to churches during class time for voluntary half-hour Christian lessons and activities.

The activity takes place off school grounds, and apparently the school does not provide transportation.

Are children (with parents ok) free to choose whatever non-educational activities they wish, and be similarly excused? If the answer to this question is yes, dumb though it may be, I see no problem from church/state standpoint.

 

[pgwenthold]

The activity takes place off school grounds, and apparently the school does not provide transportation.

Are children (with parents ok) free to choose whatever non-educational activities they wish, and be similarly excused? If the answer to this question is yes, dumb though it may be, I see no problem from church/state standpoint.

When I was in (public) school, we had what we called "release time," where the Catholic kids could, during a scheduled study hall, walk down the block to the local religious school for religion class. Note it was only during study hall, blocks where we did not have any scheduled classes, and we wandered off grounds for it. You only went if your parents signed you up for it, and most of the catholic kids didn't even do it. It was just an option.

I don't see a problem with it from a church/state POV, provided that the school would allow "release time" for other activities. Of course it did. Driver's ed, for example. We could use our study hall period to get driving time for driver's ed. Presumably, it could also be used for other secular purposes, as well. And it didn't conflict with any instruction time, because it was only during study hall.

So it was kind of like what varwoche has said here. The school allowed off campus activities during study hall periods, and in fact, given that, they have to allow the students to go to religion class if they want.

However, there is a HUGE difference between allowing students to go to religion class during an unscheduled block of time if they chose to and scheduling religion class for everyone and allowing them to opt out.