In Reason We Trust
| Summary: A Book Review of The Godless Constituition by Issac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore |
[www.CapitalismMagazine.com] Revisionist history threatens America's freedoms. And among the people who use its methodology of setting arbitrary standards, dropping relevant context, and lying -- for example, multiculturalists, feminists, socialists -- are America's self-proclaimed patriots and defenders: conservative Christians. The Godless Constitution, a compact book by two Cornell University professors, political scientist Isaac Kramnick and historian R. Laurence Moore, provides a keen, objective antidote to their revisionist standard that America is based on God and Christianity.
| Deist', 'Infidel', 'opposer of Christianity', 'Atheist, and 'Devil' are among the names Jefferson was called by his adversaries, particularly conservative Christians. |
Kramnick and Moore expertly demonstrate how intellectual and political history lead to God
and Christianity's absence in the U.S. Constitution, and why the old and the modern
conservative Christian's tactics for establishing their mutual goal of marrying religion
with state had to be opposite (the old religionists emphasized and denounced the
Constitution's secularism; the moderns downplay or evade its significance).
The authors begin their chronicle of the Constitution's secular roots with the religious
proponents of church-state separation. Roger Williams, a prominent, ardent Puritan (born
in 1603), was always concerned about maintaining "the purity of the
church;"thus, he wanted to protect it from the "worldly corruption" of the
state. If government became a religious or specifically Christian task, he predicted, this
would generally lead to shameless pandering by politicians and an exploitation of God. The
authors believe Williams would have regarded modern school-prayer proponents as those who
don't take their religious practice seriously. In the eighteenth century, Baptists in New
England fought successfully for their belief that since their churches were voluntarily
free from the state, (having had a history of governments treating them harshly), they
should be freed of the injustice of being taxed to maintain other churches.
| Jefferson and many other Founders were deist, that is, they regarded God as their Creator who endowed them with rights, but who thereafter never intervened on their thoughts or actions. Deism, as leading Objectivist Leonard Peikoff has said, is the step between Christianity and atheism. |
The Founding Fathers also learned empirically about the state's potential for tyranny. But
unlike the Baptists, they learned its proper function through the works of John Locke, an
Enlightenment political philosopher. Locke held that life, liberty, and property were
man's natural rights, and that the state was created to protect them by upholding a
voluntaristic, individualistic society. He wrote that every man has "the supreme and
absolute authority of judging for himself" and has no obligation to yield to
"the admonitions or injunctions of another." The Founders, many of whom were
disciples of Locke, understood the truth of these ideas and incorporated them into their
Declaration of Independence and godless Constitution.
They were committed to a strict separation of church and state, particularly Thomas
Jefferson; but, the authors tell us, they didn't want America to be godless, "only
its government," which "was not created to produce moral citizens."
Jefferson believed fervently in religion's importance as the foundation of morality but
"he did not confuse the work of government with the work of churches and private
citizens." He believed religious faith was "a purely private concern."
Deist, Infidel, "opposer of Christianity", Atheist, and Devil are among the
names Jefferson was called by his adversaries -- most of them being conservative
Christians. (A Reverend had warned that electing Jefferson as president would
"destroy religion, introduce immorality and loosen all the bands of society.")
Jefferson and other Founders were deists; that is, they regarded God as their Creator who
endowed them with rights, but who thereafter never intervened on their thoughts or
actions. Deism, therefore, is the step between Christianity and atheism.
| While conservatives want to control men's intellect by forcing them to obey and execute God's truths, which are whatever conservatives arbitrarily choose them to be ... the liberals generally want to control men economically by converting the Crucifix's moral symbolism -- sacrificing the ideal, virtuous man to lesser men -- into social policy, e.g., welfare statism. |
Kramnick and Moore note an issue that was highly controversial when the Constitution was
drafted: the conservative Christians' proposal that seekers of government office be
required to take a religious test as a qualification for their jobs. But enacted instead
of this proposal was the no-religious test clause of Article VI. Outraged over God and
Christianity's absence in government, the conservatives and their successors tried to
establish religion, not only in certain aspects of the government ("God" was
printed on U.S. currency in 1863 and was included in the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954; in
1912, government stopped mail delivery on Sundays), but also in the Constitution itself,
via a crusade to enact a Christian Amendment, which began during the Civil War and ended
as a fruitless effort in the 1950's.
All these relevant facts -- as well as that the Founders generally "did not believe
that Christianity was the only source of sound morals," and that when politics and
government were discussed they showed far more mastery of authors of pagan Greece and Rome
than of the biblical texts -- are that which modern religionists of the Pat Buchanan, Pat
Robertson, Ralph Reed and Jerry Falwell-ilk (all of whom the authors examine in Chapter 8)
either downplay or drop from their historical accounts.
Kramnick and Moore only briefly discuss the important but often overlooked fact of how
liberals, though less explicitly religious than conservatives, also marry religion with
state. While conservatives generally want to control the individual's mind by having the
state force him to obey God's alleged moral truths, such as with censoring certain books,
movies, art; the liberals generally want to control the individual's property by having
the state force him to accept the Crucifix's moral symbolism (i.e., sacrificing the ideal
man to less virtuous men), such as with welfare-statism -- which forces the producers to
sacrifice their property to lesser producers or parasites. At their philosophic root,
liberals are the conservatives' brethren. They both morally demand that individuals
sacrifice for others, be it God or "society." The Founders, however, despite
their religious elements, established a Constitutional Republic that fundamentally rests
on ideas that protect each individual's right to live by his own chosen morality, provided
he refrains from "injuring another in his person or property." The individual's
right to his life, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness have nevertheless eroded
piecemeal throughout this century, due to both the conservatives and the liberal's
legislation that forces their particular religious values on Americans; which thereby
instituted a democracy, i.e., the sacrifice of individual rights by majority vote, i.e.,
mob rule.
The Founders identified a principle that Ayn Rand,
author of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, made explicit: faith and
force are corollaries. That is, when God's word or any arbitrary claim taken on faith is
upheld as the morality on which government and its laws are based, then all individuals,
particularly independent, questioning ones, must either obey the state's dictates or face
its physical force. If government legislated Christianity, James Madison warned, the evils
from which Americans fled Europe would return: ignorance, superstition, servility,
bigotry, persecution.
| The Founders implicity grasped a principle that Ayn Rand made explicit: faith and force are corollaries. |
Knowing that freedom requires of individuals the use of their rational faculty to live,
Thomas Jefferson swore "eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind
of man." This famous statement, we discover, was aimed primarily at priests, whom
Jefferson believed had perverted Christianity "into an engine for enslaving mankind,
a mere contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves." In his Statute for
Religious Freedom he wrote, "It is comfortable to see the standard of reason at
length erected after so many ages during which the human mind has been held in vassalage
by kings, priests, and nobility." Since reason is man's only means to knowledge, the
individual has a right to be left free to think, judge and act peacefully within the
knowledge he acquires. Reason and freedom, therefore, are corollaries.
Thus, it was Jefferson's "strident Enlightenment rationalism, his constant
juxtaposition of reason and superstition, free inquiring and religious coercion," his
"scientific and intellectual inclinations" which helped establish the principles
of intellectual and economic laissez faire that are necessary for individuals to
potentially achieve wealth, health and happiness on earth, and which made him seem
"so dangerous a threat to his Christian enemies." Equally threatened by the
Founder's deism are modern conservative Christians. But unlike their predecessors, they
make little or no mention of the Founder's stress on reason over faith, nor of the secular
essence of their Constitution. As Kramnick and Moore keenly demonstrate:
In a staggering historical flip-flop, it [the Christian right] now celebrates the Constitution by denying its godless foundation, which so many religious leaders in the past clearly recognized and lamented. Having lost many times in its effort to put God and Christ into the persistently vilified godless Constitution and an atheistic national government, the Christian right today embraces the Constitution and its authors, rewriting history as it does so. Its adherents have falsely dressed the founders of American government and the Constitution in godly Christian garb, which they argue, later godless generations have systematically torn off. America today will suffer God's wrath, we are now told, unless it returns to its founders' abiding vision of a Christian American politics. Such is the vast distortion of American history offered by today's preachers of religious correctness.
Kramnick and Moore regrettably make brief lapses which reveal their
moral and philosophic ambiguity, as when they honor compassion, mercy, sacrifice as
prominent values, while they undermine the very values that the U.S. Constitution
implicitly and explicitly upholds: self-interest and money, i.e., property (the medium
individuals could make, inherit and keep by right); and when they write, "We would be
foolish to suggest that there is a fully consistent way to implement the position we
defend." These lapses , however, detract little from their ultimate achievement.
| And where the Founders stopped, Ayn Rand, who called the Founders America's first and last intellectuals, developed their ideas and finally integrated them into a fully consistent philosophy. |
Jefferson faulted Locke, Kramnic and Moore tell us, for extending religious freedom to
Protestant dissenters but not to Catholics. "Where he stopped," Jefferson wrote,
"we may go on." And where the Founders stopped, Ayn Rand, who called those men
America's first and last intellectuals, developed their ideas and finally integrated them
into a consistent philosophy. The authors' position would have benefited greatly from her
philosophy of Objectivism, which proves how man's rights are not, as the Founders
believed, God-given and self-evident, but that which are inherent in man by his rational
nature and objectively demonstrable. She agreed with the Founders that religion and state
must be separate and that people have a right to worship privately; otherwise she
staunchly opposed religion; proving how faith in and sacrifice to God, its essence, are
incompatible with reason and therefore destructive to man's life.
Ayn Rand held that the new intellectuals have to continue the Founders' basic political
line by reminding the world that man has a right to his own life, liberty, and happiness.
Kramnic and Moore ultimately achieve this in Godless Constitution.