p. 19 | Untitled article by W. A. Blakely

Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · January 15, 1891

FromThe American Sentinel, Vol. 6, No. 3

The American Political System Purely Secular.

By W. A. Blakely

DR. PHILIP SCHAFF, in “Church and State in the United States,” under the head, “The Connecting Links Between Church and State,” says: “A total separation of Church and State is an impossibility, unless we cease to be a Christian people.” But this is a mere dictum of a theologian whose ideas may have been largely modified by the study of American principles, but who cannot fully give up the old idea. Dr Schaff evidently belongs to the class to whom Madison referred in his letter to Edward Livingston, when he said: “Notwithstanding the general progress made during the last two centuries in favor of this branch [the religious branch] of liberty, and the full establishment of it in some parts of our country, there remains in others a strong bias toward the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Government and religion, neither can be duly supported. Such, indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded against.” What Dr. Schaff terms a necessity, Madison, the principal framer of the Constitution which is the embodiment of our political system, says is a danger which “cannot be too carefully guarded against.” This shows how diametrically opposite to American

institutions are these religio-political writers of to-day. Every argument or sophistry that they can think of is used to show that Christianity is an integral part of our laws, its recognition as such by the Government a duty, and its hallowed institutions entitled to special protection as such. But these ideas are the gratuitous inventions of the friends of Church and State. It was far from the thoughts of those who established our Government to give countenance to any such political ideas. Jefferson denies that Christianity was ever rightfully a part of the common law, even of England, much less of this country where we profess to have absolute religious liberty.

The three “connecting links between Church and State,” which Dr. Schaff mentions, are marriage, Sunday laws, and religion in public schools. But the truth is that the first of these is not a religious relation at all (any more than is plowing corn, or selling a bushel of oats, but it is simply a status entered into by a purely civil contract) and the other two are entirely outside the sphere of our political system, as can be positively proved by quotations from the writings of Madison himself, which are emphasized by the declarations of Jefferson.

On account of the “strong bias toward the old error” that there must be “some sort of alliance or coalition between Government and religion,” Madison says: “Every new and successful example, therefore, of the perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance.” It is absolutely impossible to have a “perfect separation” and yet have connecting links. Consequently, Dr. Schaff’s “connecting links” necessarily fall under the condemnation of Madison’s outspoken letter.

The truth is, however, that Madison took the pains to express himself on the “connecting link” of religion being taught in the public schools. In reference to religious professorships, he wrote to Edward Everett as follows:—

A university with sectarian professorships becomes, of course a sectarian monopoly; with professorships of rival sects, it would be an arena of theological gladiators. Without any such professorships, it may incur, for a time at least, the imputation of irreligious tendencies, if not designs. The last difficulty was thought more manageable than either of the others. On this view of the subject there seems to be no alternative but between a public university without a theological professorship, and sectarian seminaries without a university.

This imputation “of irreligious tendencies” if religion is not taught, Dr. Schaff furnishes, for he says “a total separation of Church and State is an impossibility, unless we cease to be a Christian people,” and then mentions religion in the public schools as one of the “links” which cannot be dispensed with. But Madison thought quite differently on the subject. He not only opposed having religion taught in the public schools because it was outside the sphere of the State, but he always claimed, and with good reason, that it was injurious to religion as well.

“The difficulty,” said he, “of reconciling the Christian mind to the absence of religious tuition from a university established by law, and at the common expense, is probably less with us than with you. The settled opinion here is that religion is essentially distinct from civil government, and exempt from its cognizance; that a connection between them is injurious to both; that there are causes in the human breast which insure the perpetuity of religion without the aid of law.” And in another letter the year previous, he said: “We are teaching the world the great truth . . . that religion flourishes in greater purity without, than with, the aid of government.”

These same principles forbid Sunday legislation; and, accordingly, Madison did not hesitate to express his opinion as to the “perfect equality” of Sabbatarians with Sunday keepers. In a letter to Dr. De La Motta, a Jewish Rabbi, he says: “Among the features peculiar to the political system of the United States, is the perfect equality of rights which it secures to every religious sect.” Then if the Sabbatarians, who form only “seven-tenths of one per cent,” have “perfect equality” with the dominant cult, a law compelling all to rest on Sunday is equally unjust with a law compelling all to rest on Saturday.

So, too, if the Jews are on a “perfect equality” with Christians, and Madison states emphatically that they do come “fully within the scope of these observations,” then the Jews have exactly the same right to have their belief that Christ is an imposter taught in the public schools, as have the Christians that he is divine! They have the same right to have the principles of antichrist taught in the schools, that the Christian has to have the “unsectarian principles of Christianity” taught there. Thus we see how the schools would become the arenas of theological gladiators. It is impossible to preserve equality and at the same time have any religious service whatever in the public schools. From this it is evident that Dr. Schaff’s “connecting links” are diametrically opposed to the American political system, as expounded by the principal author of the great work which is the embodiment of that system. Jefferson boldly asserted the following sweeping doctrine, when speaking of religious proclamations: “I consider the Government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrine, discipline, or exercises.”

Nor did these statesmen extend this equality only to the various religions. It was universal equality with them. No doctrine was to be taught in the schools, nor were any religious laws of any kind to be enacted that were not equally acceptable to both unbeliever and Christian. There is not a single act of Christian worship, study, or reverence of any kind that the State has a right to force upon a single citizen. It is the inalienable right and “it is the duty of every man,” says Madison, “to render to the Creator such homage, AND SUCH ONLY, as he believes to be acceptable to him.” Then the unbeliever in the Christian religion can, by right, no more be compelled to regard any of the institutions of the Christian religion, than could the Christian be compelled to regard the rites and institutions of Judaism or heathenism. All have equally the right to use their time as they will, but in that use, they must not, on any day, nor in any way, interfere with the equal rights of others. Madison says again: “All men are to be considered as entering into society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and, therefore, retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights.” Hence, if all are on a “perfect equality,” and the American system is a “perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters,” the inevitable conclusion must be that the religio-political writers in asserting that “a total separation of Church and State is an impossibility,” are mistaken; and that the American political system, when strictly carried out, is a total separation between Church and State. And we not only do not cease to be a Christian people, but “every new and successful example” of that perfect separation succeeds “in showing that religion and government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together”—the apprehensions of Church and State advocates to the contrary, notwithstanding.

W. A. BLAKELY.

University of Michigan.